Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 11:06:15 GMT -5
Things have been kinda slow lately, and I'm feeling a bit adventerous, so I'm going to stir the pot.
As we all know, social security is in trouble, and changes need to be made to keep it solvent. One change that isn't made that I don't understand is removing the benefits to spouses, or at least modifying it.
I'm not sure familiar with how it works, but as I understand it, anyone can collect an additional benefit on their spouse, assuming their spouse earned enough credits to get social security. This basically means we're paying additional SS money to people who may or may not have paid into the system, like homemakers. Even if both spouses paid into SS and are eligible to receive it, people can manipulate the system to their advantage by claiming their spouses benefit earlier, and then switch over to their own when they're older and are eligible for a higher benefit. Single people can't do this.
I feel the current system goes against the original intent of social security, which was old age/disability/survivor benefits for WORKERS. What other "insurance program" pays you additional money because you're married? Why can't couples with homemakers live off of the "breadwinner's" check alone? Let's be real here, this is a holdover from the time women couldn't earn a decent living, which is not the case anymore. Since we need to find ways to keep social security solvent, I think eliminating the spouse benefit should be a prime target.
Note that I do not support removing the survivors benefit. That seems in keeping with the original goal of the program. But it seems in this regard, the spouse benefit functions more as a social program, like welfare, than an "insurance program."
|
|
wodehouse
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2011 16:35:08 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by wodehouse on Aug 8, 2013 11:24:17 GMT -5
Interesting questions indeed. This is a topic that I've been investigating recently for my own life (for DWW ...dear widowed wife).
My understanding is that the spouse will get 50% of the SS benefit of the worker when the spouse reaches their own retirement age. I am about 10 years older than my spouse. So say I start collecting at 65, then die 4 years later, then my wife (widow) will not get any SS benefit until she reaches her own retirement age (or reduced benefit as early as...I think it can be 60 for a widowed spouse, rather than the usual "early" of 62). So I have to plan for this potential window where there would be no SS benefit for her.
If I do survive, then once she can get a SS benefit we will essentially be getting 150% of my benefit. Once I die, then the SS benefit again drops down to the 50% level. I am trying to build a spreadsheet to account for all of these scenarios.
Of course, if the spouse has worked under SS then they will get the greater of their own benefit or the spousal benefit.
I don't know if this plan was part of the original concept of SS but a point that has been made is the "insurance" type component of SS. For disability as well as survivors. So not only is SS a "savings plan" but there is an insurance aspect as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 0:15:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:26:47 GMT -5
I feel the current system goes against the original intent of social security, which was old age/disability/survivor benefits for WORKERS. What other "insurance program" pays you additional money because you're married? Why can't couples with homemakers live off of the "breadwinner's" check alone? Let's be real here, this is a holdover from the time women couldn't earn a decent living, which is not the case anymore. Since we need to find ways to keep social security solvent, I think eliminating the spouse benefit should be a prime target.
Well, you're comparing SS with insurance and we know SS is a Ponzi scheme, not insurance, but.. in theory, the SS contribution was calculated to allow for spousal benefits. If you never married or were entitled under your own record, well, you just paid for something that didn't apply to you. Pension plans are similar; most have a survivor benefit after the primary pensioner dies even though the employer probably paid a fixed amount into the plan per employee, so single employees don't have anyone who will benefit from that provision. In private insurance plans, I'm sure you can buy an annuity that pays $X as long as a couple is both alive and something less than $X after one dies. The sad fact is that SS is underfunded so whatever they collected it wasn't enough. And, frankly, I'm considering applying for spousal SS on DH's record when I turn 62 (in 1.5 years) even though I'm working full-time and intend to keep working till I'm 65. I know darn well that the gubmint will claw back a big chunk of it but that's only going to get worse over time, so I'm going to get it while I can.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 0:15:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:27:38 GMT -5
Phoenix,
Your original assumption is wrong. It's both an insurance as well as a pension program. That's why the financial return calculation never works out right. People forget the "insurance" part of the benefit.
I need to leave soon and don't have time to research some of your other points until later today. But my understanding is that the spouse only gets a partial benefit of the spouse but not both their benefit and the spousal benefit. When the spouse dies it really is a big drop in SS income.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 11:40:53 GMT -5
Hmmm, interesting. I suppose that's true Athena, in theory the spouse benefit should have been figured into the calculations, but SS was underfunded regardless. But that still means SS is underfunded, so elminating that benefit would help the system yes?
I guess the question becomes then who currently benefits from the spouse benefit, and why would it cause them undue hardship to eliminate it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 0:15:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:59:29 GMT -5
Phoenix, there's a whole generation where many women did not work outside the home. The survivor benefit was there so that Granny wouldn't be a penniless widow when Gramps dies.
For many women of my generation, the survivor portion of the spouse's SS will be more than what we would be collecting on our own records. Sometimes that makes us (and some guys, too, I am sure) feel as if we have been contributing for "nothing."
I do think they should close the loophole that lets you "play the system" by collecting off a spouse and then switching over when you reach full retirement. I don't think that was ever meant to be. The designers of SS didn't think women would have their own SS benefit to play the system with.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Aug 8, 2013 12:05:39 GMT -5
Interesting questions indeed. This is a topic that I've been investigating recently for my own life (for DWW ...dear widowed wife). My understanding is that the spouse will get 50% of the SS benefit of the worker when the spouse reaches their own retirement age. I am about 10 years older than my spouse. So say I start collecting at 65, then die 4 years later, then my wife (widow) will not get any SS benefit until she reaches her own retirement age (or reduced benefit as early as...I think it can be 60 for a widowed spouse, rather than the usual "early" of 62). So I have to plan for this potential window where there would be no SS benefit for her. If I do survive, then once she can get a SS benefit we will essentially be getting 150% of my benefit. Once I die, then the SS benefit again drops down to the 50% level. I am trying to build a spreadsheet to account for all of these scenarios. Of course, if the spouse has worked under SS then they will get the greater of their own benefit or the spousal benefit. I don't know if this plan was part of the original concept of SS but a point that has been made is the "insurance" type component of SS. For disability as well as survivors. So not only is SS a "savings plan" but there is an insurance aspect as well. Pretty sure when you die your wife would switch over to survivor benefits which I think is 100% of yours (assuming her own work history does not give her a higher amount).
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Aug 8, 2013 12:10:19 GMT -5
My grandmas both get spouse benefits because of their deceased husbands. Granted they both have other investments and income so they aren't as dependent on the money like some seniors might be.
In my Maternal grandmother's situation. She was a farm wife raising 5 kids. She ran the house, the big garden and raised the kids. My grandma is 88 years old so this was during the 50's and 60's primarily. They lived 14 miles from the nearest town (with a population of 5,000 people) to get to a town any bigger than that would be a minimum of 50 miles one way. Where was she supposed to go to work and pay into social security?
My Paternal grandmother lived in the town (the one my other grandma was 14 miles from). She has 8 kids (one died young). There were 4 kids born in a 6 year period, a gap then the 5th was born, the 6th born and died and then a significant gap before the last two were born. My dad was 18 when he youngest brother was born. Grandma was an RN before she started popping out them kids. By the time the youngest were in school and she could go back to working my great grandma started having serious dementia issues and required constant care. After she died, grandpa's sister moved in with them to finish dying from a genetic brain tumor (that took a couple of years and required constant care). There were a couple of years there when my uncles were in high school and college that she technically could have worked but having been out of the nursing field for 30 years it's not very easy to keep up with technology. She did work part time at a small local jewelry store (still does at 87). She did take a break there again when my grandpa developed the same genetic brain tumor as his sister. They donated land after his sister had died to have a hospice care home built on it and that is where my grandpa spent his final months. Was across the street from their house so she would visit him every day.
So yup- that's why they get spouse benefit. Because in the 50's and 60's they raised 13 kids between them, nursed their parents through terminal illness, and helped their husbands at their jobs (one was a farmer the other was an entrepreneur who owned a hotel, a restaurant, a travel agency, an insurance company and a reality company) but except for the one working part time at the jewelry store never earned a paycheck for their efforts.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Aug 8, 2013 12:12:39 GMT -5
This is how it works for us: We both took SS at aged 62 (7 mo apart). I collect about 50% of his total benefit. Even though I worked and have necessary credits to receive my own, it is less than 50% of DH. Therefore I receive 50% of his.
If he dies before me, I will lose my 50% benefit and only collect his 100% of benefit.
This same situation is close to what happens with the VA disability he collects every month. Since I am added on as a dependent he collects more than if he was single.
As with SS, I would lose my monthly income from SS and ALL of his VA disability. I qualify for DIC which is Dependant Indemnity Compensation. It is a flat amount per month regardless of VA percent of disability. And he must die due to his service connected disabilities. Currently, the wait for approval of DIC from the VA can be 1-2 years.
Either way, it would be a serious cut to my monthly income.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Aug 8, 2013 12:15:01 GMT -5
Hmmm, interesting. I suppose that's true Athena, in theory the spouse benefit should have been figured into the calculations, but SS was underfunded regardless. But that still means SS is underfunded, so elminating that benefit would help the system yes? I guess the question becomes then who currently benefits from the spouse benefit, and why would it cause them undue hardship to eliminate it? Well, my mom was a SAHP/Wife for most of her life. When she did work, she had public sector job that didn't take out SS. My dad will go first (Stage IV cancer). When he does, it won't be pretty. My parents didn't actively save for her retirement. I'm not sure what the plan is. I was going to start tossing in some money into a savings account and telling her that's how much I could help her with. But, as it turns out, my oldest (and presumably my youngest) have medical needs that need to be fixed. I'm the only child. And I literally cannot pay for the financial short comings of my folks. They don't go to church, so they really don't have a community that will rally around to help them. So, the gov't it is.
|
|
Happy prose
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 12:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 3,230
|
Post by Happy prose on Aug 8, 2013 12:18:34 GMT -5
If both people work and get good income, do they both receive full benefits?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 0:15:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 12:27:52 GMT -5
If both people work and get good income, do they both receive full benefits? Yes. And they get taxed up the wazoo. If they have any other income the SS gets taxed, too. Was the OP's question specifically about spousal benefits while the primary earner was alive, or Survivor benefits? I see a huge need for Survivor benefits, especially for women of earlier generations. Sheila's example is typical. The women are the childbearers, are more likely to stay out of the workforce to care for children or ailing relatives, they tend to live longer than their husbands, so after Grandpa dies (having been cared for by Grandma and using up a good deal of the financial resources) Grandma is left widowed and in shaky financial condition. Some families can and will plan for this with savings and life insurance but if we got rid of survivor benefits women would suffer the most. If it weren't for SS, we'd either have to let them die or support them with other social programs. Keep in mind, too, that women had a hard time getting into law schools, medical schools, etc. and then had a hard time getting decent jobs in those fields until things started to open up in the 1970s. So, for many years, it was just about impossible for women to make a decent income on their own record.
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Aug 8, 2013 12:34:34 GMT -5
Just a guess here, but I would assume the OP means eliminating the spousal benefit for NEW contributors or a slow phase out.
Societal norms have changed and the barriers for women entering the workforce have been removed so maybe it is time to update our social programs from this point forward.
I don't think anyone means to cut off an 85yr old grandma or elderly parent.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 12:48:15 GMT -5
Phoenix, there's a whole generation where many women did not work outside the home. The survivor benefit was there so that Granny wouldn't be a penniless widow when Gramps dies. For many women of my generation, the survivor portion of the spouse's SS will be more than what we would be collecting on our own records. Sometimes that makes us (and some guys, too, I am sure) feel as if we have been contributing for "nothing." I do think they should close the loophole that lets you "play the system" by collecting off a spouse and then switching over when you reach full retirement. I don't think that was ever meant to be. The designers of SS didn't think women would have their own SS benefit to play the system with. Note that in my OP I said that I was fine with keeping the survivor benefit. I was taking issue more with getting 50% of your spouses SS while they were still alive, regardless of whether you paid in or not. Assuming we did eliminate said benefit (which I don't think will happen anytime soon), I'd be in favor of setting a cutoff date, so people just a few years from retirement wouldn't get screwed over. Under the rules I'm proposing, the spouse would not get any money if their spouse was alive and collecting SS, but when that spouse died, the survivor would get 50%, like they do now.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Aug 8, 2013 12:52:09 GMT -5
Just a guess here, but I would assume the OP means eliminating the spousal benefit for NEW contributors or a slow phase out. Societal norms have changed and the barriers for women entering the workforce have been removed so maybe it is time to update our social programs from this point forward. I don't think anyone means to cut off an 85yr old grandma or elderly parent. I agree that norms have changed and we could probably adjust things. OTOH, the people who we could phase out of the survivor's benefit (my generation) mostly don't believe SS will exist when we retire anyway. I know I don't. I don't think I've ever looked into what DH's SS benefits would be (or mine). I wonder though how much of an impact cutting surivivor benefits would save? It doesn't seem like it would be much. I would think increasing the retirement age (from 65-68-70-72-whatever) would be more beneficial on a macro level than cutting off a bunch of widows/widowers. After all, the fact that people live so long in retirement is one of the largest reasons the program is in trouble. Do people on SS get food stamps, etc? I wonder if when we say "too bad Grandma" re SS that we end up just subsidizing her in other govt ways?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 12:55:48 GMT -5
There seems to be the misconception that I'm proposing of removing the survivor benefits for spouses. Again, I specifically said I didn't want to do this in my OP. I am specifically referring to spouses collecting SS benefits while the other spouse IS ALIVE. I realize that there are homemakers out there who are widows. I'm fine with someone collecting on their spouse's SS if that person is dead. Otherwise you'd have peniless widows prowling the streets, and no one wants that. But when the working spouse IS ALIVE, the non working spouse should be expected to live off of that spouse's social security, just as if they were still working and living off of one income.
And yes, I'm not proposing cutting off current recipiants, or even people a few years away from collecting. But a phase out would be good as the times have changed.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 13:00:33 GMT -5
If both people work and get good income, do they both receive full benefits? As I understand it, if you have a duel earner couple, they each have the option of collecting on their own SS contributions, or on each other's. So as I said in my OP, oftentimes in a duel earner situation is the spouse will claim SS benefits under their spouse, then switch over to their own benefits when they are of the age for a higher benefit.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Aug 8, 2013 13:04:59 GMT -5
Hmm...I'm confused. Say the DH is the primary worker in a 50 yr marriage. The DW works pt occasionally.
When they retire, the DH gets SS based on his more significant wages. The DW gets SS based on her more paltry wages.
Why is this bad? Or am I misunderstanding the system? Because if the DW paid into SS then she should get her calculated benefit. Now, if the DW never worked at all I'm assuming she wouldn't have any SS benefit. But perhaps she does and that is why I'm confused as to your question? Is the point that the DW could claim either her paltry SS or 50% of her DH's SS whichever is greater?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 0:15:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:05:02 GMT -5
And yes, I'm not proposing cutting off current recipients, or even people a few years away from collecting. But a phase out would be good as the times have changed. Yes, I'd agree with that. I had hoped that SS would have been on sounder financial footing by now because so many women do qualify on their own but it hasn't happened. Would you support a survivor benefit equal to 100% of what the primary wage earner got? I know that the rationale for the decrease when the primary earner dies is that expenses are less, but it tends to be a real shock to the surviving spouse in cases where they were barely getting by on the couple's SS income.
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Aug 8, 2013 13:10:29 GMT -5
And yes, I'm not proposing cutting off current recipients, or even people a few years away from collecting. But a phase out would be good as the times have changed. Yes, I'd agree with that. I had hoped that SS would have been on sounder financial footing by now because so many women do qualify on their own but it hasn't happened. Would you support a survivor benefit equal to 100% of what the primary wage earner got? I know that the rationale for the decrease when the primary earner dies is that expenses are less, but it tends to be a real shock to the surviving spouse in cases where they were barely getting by on the couple's SS income. The OP is talking about when NOBODY IS DEAD, but the spousal benefit when BOTH SPOUSES ARE ALIVE.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Aug 8, 2013 13:11:05 GMT -5
BTW I was reading an article and they've closed that loop hole. You can no longer switch from spouse to yours. If you elect spouse first you collect spousal benefit until they/you die and if they die first you can then collect survivors (which is 100%, or at least def not 50%) if it's greater. You can take your benefit early and then wait until full time retirement and switch over to your spouse's record if it's greater than what you're collecting at the moment.
Not sure how it deals with the fact I think working spouse has to collect SS first in order for spouse to collect.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 13:19:21 GMT -5
Hmm...I'm confused. Say the DH is the primary worker in a 50 yr marriage. The DW works pt occasionally. When they retire, the DH gets SS based on his more significant wages. The DW gets SS based on her more paltry wages. Why is this bad? Or am I misunderstanding the system? Because if the DW paid into SS then she should get her calculated benefit. Now, if the DW never worked at all I'm assuming she wouldn't have any SS benefit. But perhaps she does and that is why I'm confused as to your question? Is the point that the DW could claim either her paltry SS or 50% of her DH's SS whichever is greater? What I'm referring to in your situation would be as follows: DW works PT ocasionally, has paltry SS DH worked a normal 40 year career, and maxed his SS contributions DW's SS checks will be paltry, DH's SS checks will be significantly higher DH files for SS, and gets 100% of his benefit DW files for SS, not under her own "account" but under DH's, and thus gets 50% of his benefit, bringing the total payments to the couple to 150% of DH's benefits So in essence, DH paid in 100% of the contributions throughout his career, but the couple receives 150% of the benefit Now, you might point out DW's contributions were essentially "gifted" to the SS fund, and you would be right, but the couple is receiving benefits out of proportion with what they paid in.
|
|
wodehouse
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2011 16:35:08 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by wodehouse on Aug 8, 2013 13:43:55 GMT -5
My understanding is that the spouse will get 50% of the SS benefit of the worker when the spouse reaches their own retirement age. I am about 10 years older than my spouse. So say I start collecting at 65, then die 4 years later, then my wife (widow) will not get any SS benefit until she reaches her own retirement age (or reduced benefit as early as...I think it can be 60 for a widowed spouse, rather than the usual "early" of 62). So I have to plan for this potential window where there would be no SS benefit for her. If I do survive, then once she can get a SS benefit we will essentially be getting 150% of my benefit. Once I die, then the SS benefit again drops down to the 50% level. I am trying to build a spreadsheet to account for all of these scenarios. Pretty sure when you die your wife would switch over to survivor benefits which I think is 100% of yours (assuming her own work history does not give her a higher amount). I'm glad you questioned this. What you say isn't strictly correct but it did cause me to find that the survivor benefit is 100%, not 50%, but again it is only after the survivor has attained retirement age. From ss.gov (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/survivorplan/onyourown2.htm): •Your widow or widower can receive: reduced benefits as early as age 60 or full benefits at full retirement age or older. So as a survivor my wife would get the 100%, not 50%, but still this is effective only once she reaches retirement age. So in my own case if I die while collecting SS but she is not yet of retirement age she will get nothing. So that still leaves the "window" of vulnerability that I mentioned.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Aug 8, 2013 14:03:08 GMT -5
Hmm...I'm confused. Say the DH is the primary worker in a 50 yr marriage. The DW works pt occasionally. When they retire, the DH gets SS based on his more significant wages. The DW gets SS based on her more paltry wages. Why is this bad? Or am I misunderstanding the system? Because if the DW paid into SS then she should get her calculated benefit. Now, if the DW never worked at all I'm assuming she wouldn't have any SS benefit. But perhaps she does and that is why I'm confused as to your question? Is the point that the DW could claim either her paltry SS or 50% of her DH's SS whichever is greater? What I'm referring to in your situation would be as follows: DW works PT ocasionally, has paltry SS DH worked a normal 40 year career, and maxed his SS contributions DW's SS checks will be paltry, DH's SS checks will be significantly higher DH files for SS, and gets 100% of his benefit DW files for SS, not under her own "account" but under DH's, and thus gets 50% of his benefit, bringing the total payments to the couple to 150% of DH's benefits So in essence, DH paid in 100% of the contributions throughout his career, but the couple receives 150% of the benefit Now, you might point out DW's contributions were essentially "gifted" to the SS fund, and you would be right, but the couple is receiving benefits out of proportion with what they paid in. OK, makes sense. But is this a material amount of money? Meaning, the DW would get some sort of paltry SS benefit under her own account. The 50% of the DH's SS is larger, but how much so? The "extra" the couple is getting is the difference between the DW's rightful benefit and the 50% of DH's benefit. I agree that on paper it seems unfair, but are we really talking about a significant amount of money? Conversely, I honestly feel it is a bit unfair that if I return to work in some low pay pt gig, I'm automatically taxed in the 25% bracket. This is of course because DH's income is in that bracket and we file MFJ and all that, and I get the logic over why it is the way it is, but when I think of getting some $14/hr job (and have to pay pt daycare for two kids) and then pay 25% in Fed taxes on top of it, it certainly doesn't make working feel worthwhile. Yeah yeah...the consequences of my decisions blah blah blah. I'm just saying that there are lots of areas in the tax code that seem unfair when you separate them out. For example, medical flexing is completely based on whether your employer offers that program. How in the world is it legal that Person X can deduct their prescription costs but Person Y can't simply because of their employer's whim? Talk about unequal taxation! Anyway, I think you get my point.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 8, 2013 14:09:40 GMT -5
They can if they qualify, however welfare programs have asset as well as income limits. Very very low asset limits I might add. There are plenty of older folks that get by on pretty small "fixed" incomes with SS being the majority of their earnings, but they still have money squirreled away that they want to give the grandkids or whatever. They wouldn't be eligible for food stamps and other forms of welfare while they held those assets. If they got a SS benefit cut they'd have to liquidate the assets and live off those before they'd be eligible for welfare.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 8, 2013 14:19:10 GMT -5
And yes, I'm not proposing cutting off current recipients, or even people a few years away from collecting. But a phase out would be good as the times have changed. Yes, I'd agree with that. I had hoped that SS would have been on sounder financial footing by now because so many women do qualify on their own but it hasn't happened. Would you support a survivor benefit equal to 100% of what the primary wage earner got? I know that the rationale for the decrease when the primary earner dies is that expenses are less, but it tends to be a real shock to the surviving spouse in cases where they were barely getting by on the couple's SS income. I don't know. I'd probably look for a compromise and reduce it to 75%, or maybe keep it at 100% for a couple of years and then reduce it. But overall I wouldn't raise too much of a fuss if they kept the survivor's benefit at 100%. As I said, I understand why the survivor benefits exist and that's not my main issue.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 8, 2013 15:46:46 GMT -5
I understand that it seems unfair. Married peole get a benefit that single people don't. The fact is that the majority of women won't have 35 years of income to average to get the higher SS in retirement while the vaset majority of men will.
The spousal benefit was a way to make up for that. It was understood that while the woman weren't working a paid job, they were doing things that benefitied society and in many cases saved society money. If I knew that my social security was dramaticlly less if I stopped working to take care of an aging parent, I would be much more likely to put them in a nursing home and much sooner, than if I knew that safety net part was there.
How much does a year in a nursing home on medicaid's dime cost? An extra $500 a month in SS, from the spousal benefit, is only $6000 a year and I think at that rate it would take ten or twelve years of SS paying for it to make up for paying for just one year in a nursing home.
There is no magic solution which will make the money not be paid at all. IMO the only question is what pocket do you want it to come out of.
|
|
|
Post by littleoldauntie on Aug 8, 2013 15:59:55 GMT -5
As long as Social Security can continue to pay full benefits to everyone who actually paid into the program, then all is well.
When the SS system can no longer make payments, well, perhaps things will change.
I don't equate SS to a pension. If you believe your pension system is unfair, you can switch to another employer. Maybe you find one with a sweeter 401k and no pension. It would seem that "singles" are more equitably treated in a 401k situation.
I've been paying into SS since I had my first "real" job at 16. Did not have a choice then about paying into SS and I still don't.
Thank goodness that I am a registered voter!
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 8, 2013 16:01:21 GMT -5
Fat lot of good that does us, politicians from both sides have been ignoring the SS problem since 1983 when they put in the temporary fix.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 8, 2013 16:03:46 GMT -5
Fat lot of good that does us, politicians from both sides have been ignoring the SS problem since 1983 when they put in the temporary fix. You want to be really scared look at Medicare.
|
|