Social security or pension...

[TheHaitian]

Nov 11, 2018 22:20:29 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Nov 11, 2018 22:07:42 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

A surviving spouse always receives the largest SS benefit available.  But not multiple benefits.

It sounds like your friend may have the same situation as my in-laws.  My MIL did not work enough to qualify for SS on her own work history.  While my FIL was alive, he received SS based on his earnings history.  My MIL received spousal SS benefits based on my FIL’s earnings history.  MIL’s spousal benefit was 50% of FIL’s benefits.  So, if FIL got $2K a month in SS, MIL got $1K a month.  A family total of $3K of SS a month.  When my FIL died, my MIL’s SS became a surviving spouse benefit, which is equal to what my FIL received when he was living.  The spousal benefit went away.  And the family SS benefits went from $3K a month to $2K a month.

Like your friend, my MIL was surprised that she did not continue to receive my FIL’s SS benefits as well as the spousal benefits she had been receiving.  And, like your friend, the decrease in SS benefits meant that my MIL could not continue the lifestyle she had been living.

Hatian, your DW’s SS benefit after your death would be the highest of her SS based on her earnings, or a surviving spouse benefit that is equal to your SS, or SSDI (social security disability insurance) if she were to become disabled before retirement.

I just want to point out that while I commiserate with older people who lose their spouse and with it part of their income, they still are not worse off than the person who was single to begin with. In fact if the surviving partner had the lower  social security payments before the death of their partner they are still better off than the comparable single person. 

Not that this is making anything better, but it is something to consider in this discussion.

But the person that was single to begin with knew that it would be 2k/month; they already accepted that and they had changes/living arrangements that they can sustain under let’s say the 2k month.

In her case you have been receiving the amount for let’s say a decade or less (assuming here) with COLA increases and what not... and got accustomed to a lifestyle on that amount.

So now you are dealing with having just buried your spouse and then the weeks that follow you get ready to your bills and see the income is short several hundred dollars... which was her first thought. That there was a mistake and social security shorted her and she needed her kids help to down to the social security office to get it sorted out.

While she may be receiving a higher amount as it was explained here to me, it is still less than the 2 combined. Yes she is taking care of 1 less person but to be honest: how much you think she is saving by not having her husband around expenses wise?

I get the logistic behind it, but when it is happening to someone you are close with it just does not seem fair.

While social security will be around it is not something my wife and I (thankfully) are counting on... so when we do our calculations for retirement the withdrawal amount does not decrease because I die or she dies (heck we don’t know) etc.

And this made me think, if I die at 60... my wife has a whole lot more money to enjoy and spoil the kids with and vice Versa... I never imagined or hope for a situation where my death would leave her worse off .

[TheHaitian]

Nov 11, 2018 21:34:34 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Nov 11, 2018 20:49:00 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Although I would probably end up being Dorothy.

Blanche.  I wanna be Blanche.

Hell yeah

Personally I want to be Dorothy’s mom Sofia lol

[lynnerself]

I don't think there is anything inherently unfair in the way SS does it.

[TheHaitian]

Nov 12, 2018 0:51:48 GMT -5 lynnerself said:

I don't think there is anything inherently unfair in the way SS does it.

Maybe unfair is not the right “word”.

[justme]

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

[TheHaitian]

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Not necessarily true; because as a married unit they contributed more toward such benefits then a single person did.

Yes my wife paid the exact same benefits as someone earning the same as her.
—> but as her husband I am also contributing towards the benefits

If you stack up our contributions towards social security vs the single person earning the same as my wife; over a lifetime we will contribute more than the person that is single and remain single.

So because I am dead my widower should not benefit in anyway towards the benefits I paid into while alive?

[justme]

Nov 12, 2018 1:20:24 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Not necessarily true; because as a married unit they contributed more toward such benefits then a single person did.

Yes my wife paid the exact same benefits as someone earning the same as her.
—> but as her husband I am also contributing towards the benefits

If you stack up our contributions towards social security vs the single person earning the same as my wife; over a lifetime we will contribute more than the person that is single and remain single.

So because I am dead my widower should not benefit in anyway towards the benefits I paid into while alive?

No. If both spouses worked yet one is claiming under their spouse they are by definition collecting more than what the paid in for. If it wasn't more than what they paid in for both spouses would claim on their own record.

Did they pay in more than a couple where one spouse didn't work? Yes. But if you're claiming under your spouse's record you are recieving more benefits than you paid for. Your argument is just in degrees of how much more.

As for your widower comment. If a single person dies no one gets to keep recieving benefits on their work, there's no conceivable way it's fair for a married person to still have their benefits continue beyond the grave but that's how SS is set up.


SS heavily favors married workers. Even more so if you marry, divorce, and remarry.

[resolution]

Nov 12, 2018 1:20:24 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Not necessarily true; because as a married unit they contributed more toward such benefits then a single person did.

Yes my wife paid the exact same benefits as someone earning the same as her.
—> but as her husband I am also contributing towards the benefits

If you stack up our contributions towards social security vs the single person earning the same as my wife; over a lifetime we will contribute more than the person that is single and remain single.

So because I am dead my widower should not benefit in anyway towards the benefits I paid into while alive?

They aren't contributing any more than they would if they were boyfriend/girlfriend, but they have the potential to receive more.

[resolution]

Nov 11, 2018 23:38:47 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 11, 2018 22:20:29 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I just want to point out that while I commiserate with older people who lose their spouse and with it part of their income, they still are not worse off than the person who was single to begin with. In fact if the surviving partner had the lower  social security payments before the death of their partner they are still better off than the comparable single person. 

Not that this is making anything better, but it is something to consider in this discussion.

But the person that was single to begin with knew that it would be 2k/month; they already accepted that and they had changes/living arrangements that they can sustain under let’s say the 2k month.

In her case you have been receiving the amount for let’s say a decade or less (assuming here) with COLA increases and what not... and got accustomed to a lifestyle on that amount.

So now you are dealing with having just buried your spouse and then the weeks that follow you get ready to your bills and see the income is short several hundred dollars... which was her first thought. That there was a mistake and social security shorted her and she needed her kids help to down to the social security office to get it sorted out.

While she may be receiving a higher amount as it was explained here to me, it is still less than the 2 combined. Yes she is taking care of 1 less person but to be honest: how much you think she is saving by not having her husband around expenses wise?

I get the logistic behind it, but when it is happening to someone you are close with it just does not seem fair.

While social security will be around it is not something my wife and I (thankfully) are counting on... so when we do our calculations for retirement the withdrawal amount does not decrease because I die or she dies (heck we don’t know) etc.

And this made me think, if I die at 60... my wife has a whole lot more money to enjoy and spoil the kids with and vice Versa... I never imagined or hope for a situation where my death would leave her worse off .

It is a really rough situation and I feel for anyone that lost a loved one and then had their living situation disrupted at the same time. If she has a lot of equity in her home, she may be able to do a reverse mortgage to keep the house while she adjusts. Those things are loaded with interest and fees, so it would be a worse decision financially than downsizing and finding a more affordable place, but she may benefit from the stability of staying in place.

When my friend and his father were killed, his mom moved out of their place and in with her brother and his family. I think it was the best thing for her, because she had family around her all of the time to help her process what had happened. 

[Value Buy]

Another discussion where Social Security is discussed as not being the savior of old people.........and yet economists worldwide lament the lack of inflation and tell you it is a great thing that we have inflation, but fail to tell you wage increases or government payment programs never catch up to the inflation levels.
Heck, Social Security tells you inflation is not as bad as it really is in their measurement stats that do not honestly capture inflation's actual rates.
In the Haitian's situation, if he dies before the daughter turns 18, at the least the wife gets the income for the daughter to help her. 

[happyhoix]

Nov 11, 2018 20:16:15 GMT -5 resolution said:

Nov 11, 2018 19:45:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

It's not just Haitian immigrants who have that problem.

I heard the other day that 25% of Americans have more credit card debt than savings, and 50% have no retirement savings at all. In YM world I feel pretty poor (DH and I have about 750 in 401K savings, and another 100K in savings-savings, but that seems meager compared to a lot of people on here) but apparently, if the statistics are at all correct, we're very much the exception.

Which is scary as hell. Pensions are rare, anymore. SSI was never meant to be 100% of your retirement income. What will happen to all the people who have no retirement savings at all?

Low income senior housing, food stamps, medicare premium picked up by the QMBY program, obama phone, eventually medicaid long term care for nursing home.

Or on a more positive note - the Golden Girls. That would be my preferred solution, if it were to come down to it. Although I would probably end up being Dorothy.

The scary part to me is the number of people who will be obligated to live this way - my parent's generation mostly had pensions, and now, pension benefits are rare. With so many people not saving for retirement, but more people living longer, will there still be a big enough pot of money to fund medicare, senior housing, etc.

Add into that, more people ending up with Alzheimers or dementia requiring nursing home care 24/7, plus the giant government deficient we're currently running, and how some politicians are pushing to reduce SSI and medicare spending, and it scares me that there will be a big pile of seniors with little to no savings attempting to tap into a social safety net that has shrunk.

 

[Value Buy]

Nov 12, 2018 7:46:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Nov 11, 2018 20:16:15 GMT -5 resolution said:

Low income senior housing, food stamps, medicare premium picked up by the QMBY program, obama phone, eventually medicaid long term care for nursing home.

Or on a more positive note - the Golden Girls. That would be my preferred solution, if it were to come down to it. Although I would probably end up being Dorothy.

The scary part to me is the number of people who will be obligated to live this way - my parent's generation mostly had pensions, and now, pension benefits are rare. With so many people not saving for retirement, but more people living longer, will there still be a big enough pot of money to fund medicare, senior housing, etc.

Add into that, more people ending up with Alzheimers or dementia requiring nursing home care 24/7, plus the giant government deficient we're currently running, and how some politicians are pushing to reduce SSI and medicare spending, and it scares me that there will be a big pile of seniors with little to no savings attempting to tap into a social safety net that has shrunk.

 

Now let's talk 20 million illegal aliens who the vast majority will swell the number of people who will retire here in a sea of poverty and everyone will lament the fact the government failed these old people and have not paid them anything.

[milee]

Nov 12, 2018 7:52:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 12, 2018 7:46:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The scary part to me is the number of people who will be obligated to live this way - my parent's generation mostly had pensions, and now, pension benefits are rare. With so many people not saving for retirement, but more people living longer, will there still be a big enough pot of money to fund medicare, senior housing, etc.

Add into that, more people ending up with Alzheimers or dementia requiring nursing home care 24/7, plus the giant government deficient we're currently running, and how some politicians are pushing to reduce SSI and medicare spending, and it scares me that there will be a big pile of seniors with little to no savings attempting to tap into a social safety net that has shrunk.

 

Now let's talk 20 million illegal aliens who the vast majority will swell the number of people who will retire here in a sea of poverty and everyone will lament the fact the government failed these old people and have not paid them anything.

Total nonsequitor and nasty attempt to deflect.  Different issues.

And even if they weren't different issues, the overall economic contribution/drain of undocumented immigrants is a subject of much debate even among experts.  Tough to get a complete picture, but some models show a net drain and other models show a net contribution.  

Given that level of uncertainty that there is a net economic drain and the fact that it was just an attempt to deflect, might be best to confine that discussion to threads on that topic.

[resolution]

Nov 12, 2018 7:52:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 12, 2018 7:46:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The scary part to me is the number of people who will be obligated to live this way - my parent's generation mostly had pensions, and now, pension benefits are rare. With so many people not saving for retirement, but more people living longer, will there still be a big enough pot of money to fund medicare, senior housing, etc.

Add into that, more people ending up with Alzheimers or dementia requiring nursing home care 24/7, plus the giant government deficient we're currently running, and how some politicians are pushing to reduce SSI and medicare spending, and it scares me that there will be a big pile of seniors with little to no savings attempting to tap into a social safety net that has shrunk.

 

Now let's talk 20 million illegal aliens who the vast majority will swell the number of people who will retire here in a sea of poverty and everyone will lament the fact the government failed these old people and have not paid them anything.

There are 11 million illegals right now, and the number has been shrinking for the last decade. They are a lot more likely to live in multi-generational households than Americans are, so they should be fine.   The ones out on the street in the future are likely to be the same that are today - a lot of mentally ill and a lot of vets.

For all of it faults, social security has been the most effective poverty reduction program in this country. www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-lifts-more-americans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program

Social Security reduces elderly poverty dramatically in every state in the nation, as Figure 2 and Appendix Table 1 show. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would meet or exceed 40 percent in more than half the states; with Social Security, it is less than 10 percent in two-thirds of states. Social Security lifts more than 1 million elderly people out of poverty in California, Florida, and Texas, and over half a million in Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2018 1:20:24 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Not necessarily true; because as a married unit they contributed more toward such benefits then a single person did.

Yes my wife paid the exact same benefits as someone earning the same as her.
—> but as her husband I am also contributing towards the benefits

If you stack up our contributions towards social security vs the single person earning the same as my wife; over a lifetime we will contribute more than the person that is single and remain single.

So because I am dead my widower should not benefit in anyway towards the benefits I paid into while alive?

How do you figure that? 

[happyhoix]

Nov 12, 2018 7:52:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 12, 2018 7:46:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The scary part to me is the number of people who will be obligated to live this way - my parent's generation mostly had pensions, and now, pension benefits are rare. With so many people not saving for retirement, but more people living longer, will there still be a big enough pot of money to fund medicare, senior housing, etc.

Add into that, more people ending up with Alzheimers or dementia requiring nursing home care 24/7, plus the giant government deficient we're currently running, and how some politicians are pushing to reduce SSI and medicare spending, and it scares me that there will be a big pile of seniors with little to no savings attempting to tap into a social safety net that has shrunk.

 

Now let's talk 20 million illegal aliens who the vast majority will swell the number of people who will retire here in a sea of poverty and everyone will lament the fact the government failed these old people and have not paid them anything.

So you assume all 20 million illegal aliens will retire in a 'sea of poverty?' Do you assume ALL illegals will end up this way, even the illegals from Ireland and Germany?

That's making quite a shitty assumption about all illegal aliens - a shitty assumption that flies in the face of the fact that most illegal aliens are very hard working, often doing the back breaking, dirty work native born citizens won't do (or won't do for low wages).

[hoops902]

Nov 11, 2018 23:38:47 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 11, 2018 22:20:29 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I just want to point out that while I commiserate with older people who lose their spouse and with it part of their income, they still are not worse off than the person who was single to begin with. In fact if the surviving partner had the lower  social security payments before the death of their partner they are still better off than the comparable single person. 

Not that this is making anything better, but it is something to consider in this discussion.

But the person that was single to begin with knew that it would be 2k/month; they already accepted that and they had changes/living arrangements that they can sustain under let’s say the 2k month.

In her case you have been receiving the amount for let’s say a decade or less (assuming here) with COLA increases and what not... and got accustomed to a lifestyle on that amount.

So now you are dealing with having just buried your spouse and then the weeks that follow you get ready to your bills and see the income is short several hundred dollars... which was her first thought. That there was a mistake and social security shorted her and she needed her kids help to down to the social security office to get it sorted out.

While she may be receiving a higher amount as it was explained here to me, it is still less than the 2 combined. Yes she is taking care of 1 less person but to be honest: how much you think she is saving by not having her husband around expenses wise?

I get the logistic behind it, but when it is happening to someone you are close with it just does not seem fair.

While social security will be around it is not something my wife and I (thankfully) are counting on... so when we do our calculations for retirement the withdrawal amount does not decrease because I die or she dies (heck we don’t know) etc.

And this made me think, if I die at 60... my wife has a whole lot more money to enjoy and spoil the kids with and vice Versa... I never imagined or hope for a situation where my death would leave her worse off .

The person who was married knows exactly what they're going to get when one spouse dies (or knows if they cared to check).

I'd also point out that not having another elderly person around (particularly one who has just died) can save a LOT of money.  We always talk on this board about the massive costs of healthcare in old age right?  They're potentially losing MORE than half of their costs if that money was going towards caring for someone who was dying.  It all depends on what your expenses are.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Yes, but this was priced into the SS system.  (Well, we know it's probably underfunded but in theory the contribution includes the additional cost of spousal and survivor benefits.)  So, you have those coverages by default- it's just that for some people it will never be used. I feel pretty safe saying that no one will ever collect spousal or Survivor SS on my record- both my Ex and my second husband are dead and I'm unlikely to remarry.  No one ever collected it on DH's record, either- I would have been able to file for Restricted Benefits on his record at FRA but he died in the meantime so I'm getting Survivor benefits.  So yes, DH and I both paid for benefits not used. Think of all the years gay people paid into the system when there was no way (before same-sex marriage was legal) for a Spouse or Survivor to collect on their record unless they had a previous heterosexual marriage.

So- high-earning two-career couples get charged for benefits they won't use and I'm OK with that.  As for spouses collecting when they personally contributed little or nothing, think of the disastrous impact it would have on elderly women, especially the ones who were traditional homemakers (and/or worked in years with few decent career opportunities for women).  As a matter of public policy we HAD to build that into the system.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2018 9:15:27 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'd also point out that not having another elderly person around (particularly one who has just died) can save a LOT of money. We always talk on this board about the massive costs of healthcare in old age right? They're potentially losing MORE than half of their costs if that money was going towards caring for someone who was dying. It all depends on what your expenses are.

I know I'm just a sample of one but I can assure you that my mortgage, my property taxes and my homeowners insurance did not decrease after DH died. Neither have the utilities, other than my decision to drop cable TV programming in favor of Netflix. My taxes have gone UP. I'm no longer paying his Medicare premiums or out-of-pocket prescription costs but those weren't a big part of the budget.


Since the average SS check is something like $1,500/month, if you and your spouse were living on $2,250/month (150% of spouse) and it goes to $1,500- yeah, that would hurt. I agree people should plan for it but I suspect most don't- and life insurance, which is one option, gets very expensive as you get older so you have to plan early.

[justme]

Nov 12, 2018 9:21:40 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Nov 12, 2018 1:07:39 GMT -5 justme said:

If anything, the spousal portion is unfair. They're recieving a benefit based on someone else's work and payroll deductions. If two people earned the exact same money throughout their career, if one is married and one is single the married one gets significantly more SS benefit purely because they're married. They paid the exact same in but get different benefits.

Yes, but this was priced into the SS system.  (Well, we know it's probably underfunded but in theory the contribution includes the additional cost of spousal and survivor benefits.)  So, you have those coverages by default- it's just that for some people it will never be used. I feel pretty safe saying that no one will ever collect spousal or Survivor SS on my record- both my Ex and my second husband are dead and I'm unlikely to remarry.  No one ever collected it on DH's record, either- I would have been able to file for Restricted Benefits on his record at FRA but he died in the meantime so I'm getting Survivor benefits.  So yes, DH and I both paid for benefits not used. Think of all the years gay people paid into the system when there was no way (before same-sex marriage was legal) for a Spouse or Survivor to collect on their record unless they had a previous heterosexual marriage.

So- high-earning two-career couples get charged for benefits they won't use and I'm OK with that.  As for spouses collecting when they personally contributed little or nothing, think of the disastrous impact it would have on elderly women, especially the ones who were traditional homemakers (and/or worked in years with few decent career opportunities for women).  As a matter of public policy we HAD to build that into the system.

I'm not saying they should get rid of it. I agree with the negative impact on women if spousal benefit was removed. I do think the large increase of divorces were probably not calculated into it, but it also probably is not a huge hit to the system.

My statements were against Carl's idea that it's not fair for the benefits to decrease when a spouse dies. I was just pointing out that married couples are already doing better in regards to payments over a single so they're already better off.

ETA I should clarify, married couples where both don't stay on their payout their entire lives.

[Deleted]

And then you have those that die and their ex-spouse, AND their current spouse are collecting on their account.  

Having been divorced twice and my income instantly cut in half, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those that KNOW it's coming and still aren't prepared.  If you go into retirement with a mortgage and expenses that require both social security checks, you're taking a ton of risk.  I mean, come on.  You KNOW you're both going to die and one of you is probably going to go first and leave the other.

[Lizard Queen]

When my dad died, my mom's monthly income dropped by $800, and it was perfectly fair.  She had savings, though, and didn't spend much.  My dad spent a lot more on his various gadgets and golfing all summer.  Of course, the house was paid off decades prior to that.

[hoops902]

Nov 12, 2018 9:27:54 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Nov 12, 2018 9:15:27 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'd also point out that not having another elderly person around (particularly one who has just died) can save a LOT of money. We always talk on this board about the massive costs of healthcare in old age right? They're potentially losing MORE than half of their costs if that money was going towards caring for someone who was dying. It all depends on what your expenses are.

I know I'm just a sample of one but I can assure you that my mortgage, my property taxes and my homeowners insurance did not decrease after DH died. Neither have the utilities, other than my decision to drop cable TV programming in favor of Netflix. My taxes have gone UP. I'm no longer paying his Medicare premiums or out-of-pocket prescription costs but those weren't a big part of the budget.


Since the average SS check is something like $1,500/month, if you and your spouse were living on $2,250/month (150% of spouse) and it goes to $1,500- yeah, that would hurt. I agree people should plan for it but I suspect most don't- and life insurance, which is one option, gets very expensive as you get older so you have to plan early.

Obviously the costs and reduced costs will be impacted by lots of things including whether you own a home, whether you have a mortgage on it, etc.  Ditto for how old you/spouse are, and what kind of health spouse was in (a prolonged illness with high costs obviously ends with more reduced costs than a spouse who passes away quickly).

[Blonde Granny]

I've posted before that when my DH died 3 years ago I lost $3700/mo in income. $3K of it was his VA disability and $800 was my SS. My monthly income now for SS and my portion of VA disability is just over $3000k/mo.

No mortgage, credit card debt, no car payments. I am fortunate that the state of Arkansas is very generous to veterans who were rated 100% permanent and total by the VA and I am able to retain the benefit of having to pay no real estate taxes and no personal property taxes. I also have a DV license plate (disabled veteran) and the license plate doesn't expire so I pay nothing to renew the plate. My total expenses each month are about $2K of my $3k income. I do not take anything from investments unless it's an absolute emergency, and I had one of those a few months ago.

Before DH died (and we knew it was coming) I did a YNAB projected budget on what my income would be and expenses. What did lower was eating out, gasoline (as he wanted to take a day trip everyday). Groceries decreased greatly, long distance travel, and the purchase of new cars. DH loved cars and enjoyed having a new one to drive every few months.....That was a real budget killer.

Today, I have a 2018 Cadillac SUV, live very comfortably and put about $1K into a savings account each month. I use YNAB and have for 5 years or so. It's a great way to continue to watch my spending even though my monthly expenses seldom vary to the extent that I need to rein my spending back.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2018 9:54:42 GMT -5 Blonde Granny said:

DH loved cars and enjoyed having a new one to drive every few months.....That was a real budget killer.

[vonna]

The toughest part of our decision to retire early was survivor issues.  Kept me up many nights number crunching, and playing out different scenarios.

It actually "helped" that we had a kid late in the game. 

I researched what SS child survivor benefits were, and was pleasantly surprised.  We ended up opting for child only survivor benefits on each of our military pensions.  Way cheaper than taking spouse benefits, that we really didn't need long term since we each have our own pension.

The idea was if one of us met an unfortunate early demise, the surviving spouse would receive SS benefits till DD turned 18, plus half of the lost pension till 23, as long as in college.   By the time she finishes college, I will be 62, DH 64 -- so able to start collecting our own SS at any time. Plus we have a pretty decent nest egg if my calculations were off.

We're ten years into retirement, and still happy with that choice.  

[Value Buy]

Nov 12, 2018 8:42:13 GMT -5 resolution said:

Nov 12, 2018 7:52:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Now let's talk 20 million illegal aliens who the vast majority will swell the number of people who will retire here in a sea of poverty and everyone will lament the fact the government failed these old people and have not paid them anything.

There are 11 million illegals right now, and the number has been shrinking for the last decade. They are a lot more likely to live in multi-generational households than Americans are, so they should be fine.   The ones out on the street in the future are likely to be the same that are today - a lot of mentally ill and a lot of vets.

For all of it faults, social security has been the most effective poverty reduction program in this country. www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-lifts-more-americans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program

Social Security reduces elderly poverty dramatically in every state in the nation, as Figure 2 and Appendix Table 1 show. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would meet or exceed 40 percent in more than half the states; with Social Security, it is less than 10 percent in two-thirds of states. Social Security lifts more than 1 million elderly people out of poverty in California, Florida, and Texas, and over half a million in Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

11 Million? You can more than double that number.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/24/yale-study-finds-us-illegal-immigrant-population-s/

[resolution]

Department of Homeland security says 11 million. 

www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident

Regardless, none of them are eligible for social security, so they have no impact on the benefits being discussed, other than the fact that many are paying into the fund and won't take anything out of it.

[Value Buy]

Nov 12, 2018 10:55:40 GMT -5 resolution said:

Department of Homeland security says 11 million. 

www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident

Regardless, none of them are eligible for social security, so they have no impact on the benefits being discussed, other than the fact that many are paying into the fund and won't take anything out of it.

That is not all true either.
Many have illegal document showing a legal social security card, and our government agencies are so broken they will never catch the illicit numbers.
Government will say different, but the fact is many collect social security.

[milee]

Nov 12, 2018 11:00:59 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 12, 2018 10:55:40 GMT -5 resolution said:

Department of Homeland security says 11 million. 

www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident

Regardless, none of them are eligible for social security, so they have no impact on the benefits being discussed, other than the fact that many are paying into the fund and won't take anything out of it.

That is not all true either.
Many have illegal document showing a legal social security card, and our government agencies are so broken they will never catch the illicit numbers.
Government will say different, but the fact is many collect social security.

It is very common for undocumented workers to have a fake social security card they can give to employers.  I've seen the fakes and they are good - most employers would not be able to tell the card is fake.  So the fake card allows the person to be hired and pay taxes into SS under that SS #.

On the other hand, it's a completely different mechanism that is used to collect SS benefits, so it's not clear to me that using a fake SS card would work for that.  Not ruling it out - our government is notoriously bad at preventing fraud and waste, so maybe it truly is as simple as presenting your fake card and collecting.  But have there been any studies or commentary on how the verification process for SS benefits works and that there are lack of controls to prevent people from improperly drawing SS benefits?