NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,369
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 5, 2019 12:40:14 GMT -5
I will switch over to survivor benefits under hubs if he dies first, mine is about a 1/3 of his. But from what I'm reading because I took it at age 62 and that was almost a 25% cut, then his will be cut the same amount when I get it I also do not know if I will get his benefits at age 69 minus the 25% or will only get what he would have gotten at age 66.7. DD gets half of his now, and at his death will get 3/4's, she gets more then me now! But they figured mine and under my record I get just a bit over half of his before all the deductions. Looking at hers she is not getting half of his age 69, that's why I'm thinking there is a max on survivors if this makes sense. Ok, to be fair, she gets Medicaid so she doesn't have part B and that stuff deducted from hers and Medicaid covers her scrips, so that is why she gets more then me. Her social security pay takes care of her dental, glasses, and all the kinds of things she has no insurance for so that is a life saver for us. Also helps cover her living costs. But she doesn't get enough to live on her own, we would have to supplement it or the state at some point. She is eligible for VA but can't get it as she has Medicaid and they will not grant benefits to folks like that I don't understand because they are the ones in most need. So people who need assisted living desperately if they have Medicaid cannot get VA. VA and SS covers MIL's costs at assisted living, just barely but it does, she pays out of pocket $3600 a year for a supplement, luckily its union and it also covers her scrips. If we didn't have that, she would have to go in a nursing home or we would have to care for her in our home. That would be a nightmare. I don't know the answer to your question but your DHs FRA was 66 not 66.7 (I know since you are both a little older than I am and 66 is my full FRA). So either you get 75% of his benefits at 66 or 75% of what he received since he applied for SS when he stopped working. 66.7 is not an age that is of interest to your benefits
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Feb 5, 2019 13:45:22 GMT -5
I am pretty sure you are wrong about permanently reduced survivor benefits. They will only be reduced if your husband dies and you claim them before you reach your FRA.
"Regardless of when your wife starts drawing retirement and spousal benefits, though, if you die after she has already reached FRA, she would receive your full benefit rate as a widow. And, if you wait until age 70 to start drawing you benefits, she could receive your full age 70 rate inclusive of the delayed retirement credits you earned. If you die before she reaches full retirement age, your wife could either wait until FRA to get an unreduced widow's benefit, or start drawing it early at a reduced rate." ETA There is a Family limit, but I'm not informed enough to know how that would apply to you and your daughter's benefits.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,928
Member is Online
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 5, 2019 14:04:34 GMT -5
Both of you make sense and I hope that is true because I could not live on what I get and if his were reduced it would really hurt. I need to double check with SS, but it will probably be me first anyway as I have more health issues then he does.
Now I think about it seems like my son is 66.7 age to retire instead of us.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 5, 2019 14:11:11 GMT -5
Both of you make sense and I hope that is true because I could not live on what I get and if his were reduced it would really hurt. I need to double check with SS, but it will probably be me first anyway as I have more health issues then he does. Now I think about it seems like my son is 66.7 age to retire instead of us. For those born in 1954 and before, FRA is 66. For those born in 1960 or later it is 67. The increase phases in between 1955 and 1959, rising by two months each year.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,928
Member is Online
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 5, 2019 14:37:51 GMT -5
Now I have no idea where I got that age, so son is 67. He said he will likely be like dad and work till 70 if he can. His wife is 10 years younger so will have to pay ins out of pocket for her. At 70 his son will be almost 24, should be out of college if he goes. He is planning on him going.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 5, 2019 14:42:43 GMT -5
Obviously I have no idea how this kind of things works. Seems incredibly complicated in my mind actually. I'm picturing a small business, where nobody is getting a W-2 because there's no reason to W-2 yourself here. So then all of your income isn't actually your income...it's "business" income that potentially you each share in equally. At the same time, only 1 of you is really qualified to keep working going forward in a similar capacity, but it's easy to see an argument for "why would I pay alimony? we both work at a family business, when the business dissolves we'll both be jobless and even". To your point about standard of living...to me the question from a logical standpoint becomes how you attribute the income prior to divorce. It's tough to say one side should pay another side alimony if both sides had equal income while married. Maybe someone on this board knows how that kind of thing works when it's a family business, specifically if it dissolves and if one partner is far more involved in the "work" while it is jointly owned. Seems like a new and interesting question, and it feels like we so rarely get new and interesting questions on here. One thing to keep in mind is that the courts do not want to make one spouse into a social burden. In that light, division of marital assets, including future earnings, may not be equal. Rather, the division may be made in a way that ensures the custodial parent can provide adequate support for the family. Even if it creates financial challenges for the non- custodial parent. What custodial parent? Their youngest is in college.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 5, 2019 16:27:18 GMT -5
This is one of those cases where they need to put aside their animosity and come up with a settlement, otherwise it's going to get really expensive really quickly. She worked while he went to school, so his degree is marital property. They will have to hire an expert to evaluate the value of the degree and award her a share. She would also be entitled to maintenance for deferring her career to work in his. Also, the business will have a value that would be determined by an expert and she would be awarded a share of the business value. It sounds like it could be a big win for her, however, if his business dries up, or he gets hurt and can't work, she's fucked. Come up with some kind of buyout paid over a few years and some maintenance, and go their separate ways. Save the lawyer fees, save the expert fees, and salvage whatever relationship they can to be civil for the kids. I never knew a degree could be considered marital property. She also has a degree. Doesn't that cancel each other out? I'm both fascinated and horrified at divorce law. Mine was easy-peasy (as far as dividing assets (we didn't)) so I now realize how lucky I was. I can't imagine giving up half of what I earned because I was married. I'm not saying who is entitled or who isn't, I'm speaking as someone who is divorced and I would have been f'n livid!lol And stories like this remind me of why it is best to cohabitate unless you have one hell of a prenup! It also varies on the people. I assume your prenup would be to keep everything totally separate throughout the marriage. Whereas others would be just as likely to want a prenup to say 50/50. Frankly I don't fully understand those that get married and have prenups where they're effectively paid per year of marriage. Either we're equal partners and everything made during the marriage is equal, or well I'm just your paid arm candy. Though I guess there's obviously some ok with the latter.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 5, 2019 17:57:44 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind is that the courts do not want to make one spouse into a social burden. In that light, division of marital assets, including future earnings, may not be equal. Rather, the division may be made in a way that ensures the custodial parent can provide adequate support for the family. Even if it creates financial challenges for the non- custodial parent. What custodial parent? Their youngest is in college. This was intended to be a general comment on the division of marital assets and support payments rather than be specific to the family the OP described. The point being that marital property and future income are not always divided evenly.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 5, 2019 18:04:57 GMT -5
I never knew a degree could be considered marital property. She also has a degree. Doesn't that cancel each other out? I'm both fascinated and horrified at divorce law. Mine was easy-peasy (as far as dividing assets (we didn't)) so I now realize how lucky I was. I can't imagine giving up half of what I earned because I was married. I'm not saying who is entitled or who isn't, I'm speaking as someone who is divorced and I would have been f'n livid!lol And stories like this remind me of why it is best to cohabitate unless you have one hell of a prenup! It also varies on the people. I assume your prenup would be to keep everything totally separate throughout the marriage. Whereas others would be just as likely to want a prenup to say 50/50. Frankly I don't fully understand those that get married and have prenups where they're effectively paid per year of marriage. Either we're equal partners and everything made during the marriage is equal, or well I'm just your paid arm candy. Though I guess there's obviously some ok with the latter. Many prenups are written to provide for a second spouse while also protecting the interests of children or to ensure that family heirlooms remain in the family. Second spouses who effectively disinherit their partner’s children appear to be more common than we would like.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 5, 2019 19:25:22 GMT -5
I never knew a degree could be considered marital property. She also has a degree. Doesn't that cancel each other out? I'm both fascinated and horrified at divorce law. Mine was easy-peasy (as far as dividing assets (we didn't)) so I now realize how lucky I was. I can't imagine giving up half of what I earned because I was married. I'm not saying who is entitled or who isn't, I'm speaking as someone who is divorced and I would have been f'n livid!lol And stories like this remind me of why it is best to cohabitate unless you have one hell of a prenup! It also varies on the people. I assume your prenup would be to keep everything totally separate throughout the marriage. Whereas others would be just as likely to want a prenup to say 50/50. Frankly I don't fully understand those that get married and have prenups where they're effectively paid per year of marriage. Either we're equal partners and everything made during the marriage is equal, or well I'm just your paid arm candy. Though I guess there's obviously some ok with the latter. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it would be the lower earning spouse that would insist on a 50/50 prenup. Considering something like 50% of marriages end in divorce, a high income person would be a moron to agree to a prenup like that. I doubt I will remarry because losing everything. I’ve worked for scares me. I would only consider if the prenup said I walk away with my assets and he has no claim to my earnings after the date of separation. I would never want a mans money but I will also be damned if I want to give a man mine. And I say that as a person who is deeply in love with their BF. We’ve lived together for almost a year and a half. But I’m still not risking half of everything to get married
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 5, 2019 22:11:38 GMT -5
It also varies on the people. I assume your prenup would be to keep everything totally separate throughout the marriage. Whereas others would be just as likely to want a prenup to say 50/50. Frankly I don't fully understand those that get married and have prenups where they're effectively paid per year of marriage. Either we're equal partners and everything made during the marriage is equal, or well I'm just your paid arm candy. Though I guess there's obviously some ok with the latter. Many prenups are written to provide for a second spouse while also protecting the interests of children or to ensure that family heirlooms remain in the family. Second spouses who effectively disinherit their partner’s children appear to be more common than we would like. Wasn't exactly referring to prenups with a second marriage with kids from the first. Though mine did leave everything before the marriage staying as whoever's it was, so my thoughts still mostly stand.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 5, 2019 22:18:26 GMT -5
It also varies on the people. I assume your prenup would be to keep everything totally separate throughout the marriage. Whereas others would be just as likely to want a prenup to say 50/50. Frankly I don't fully understand those that get married and have prenups where they're effectively paid per year of marriage. Either we're equal partners and everything made during the marriage is equal, or well I'm just your paid arm candy. Though I guess there's obviously some ok with the latter. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it would be the lower earning spouse that would insist on a 50/50 prenup. Considering something like 50% of marriages end in divorce, a high income person would be a moron to agree to a prenup like that. I doubt I will remarry because losing everything. I’ve worked for scares me. I would only consider if the prenup said I walk away with my assets and he has no claim to my earnings after the date of separation. I would never want a mans money but I will also be damned if I want to give a man mine. And I say that as a person who is deeply in love with their BF. We’ve lived together for almost a year and a half. But I’m still not risking half of everything to get married Well that's more or less my thoughts on it. Everything before the marriage stays separate. Everything during split. Everything after day date of filing is separate again, with caveats for things like knowing you won the lotto before but not claiming until after you file. Or certain family inheritances even if they were used by the family before the split. I honestly have no idea whether I would be the high or low earning person. I have a decent shot at being high due to the fact that I'm already about 50% above the mean in my city. My thoughts are just we're either equal or we're not. And if we're not then I'm not legally tying myself to you. But I also am well versed in finance and don't plan to marry someone who doesn't have similar finance views to me.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,928
Member is Online
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 5, 2019 22:56:28 GMT -5
I bought our house in my name out of convenience, just realized tonight its still in my name. Hubs said before he doesn't care, it was mostly paid for by money from the sale of the folks farm. However hubs paid for the garages and some on the house. No point in changing it, it will all go to son one day anyway and we have a will.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,890
Member is Online
|
Post by haapai on Feb 6, 2019 4:59:32 GMT -5
Not Me! But i'm sure we have people who might benefit. I have a friend whose husband has told her he doesn't want to be married anymore. Both 50s. First year last kid is in college. I think its been coming for a long while. He has always been an asshole. I am always the worst case scenario in novel writing brain detail. So check me here and tell me how to advise. She also homeschooled her kids. Joint decision. He was pissed when the second started college and she did not immediately have a job. She has gone through CASA training and worked on getting a specific licence in that time. BUT. They have never hurt for money. My feeling is that he has been planning this for a long time. He wants her employed so alimony claims will be lessened. Also, she says he has always been good about money etc and not trying to take over accounts, etc. However, i know their business has been cash heavy in the past and she has said the cash has dried up the last few years. Again. She isn't in the daily workings of the business and i think he has been planning this for a long time. I would bet any money he has been siphoning off cash for years now. I don't know. Should i just be listening and saying nothing? Should i tell her my feelings? Are there legitimate, rational steps i should be telling her to take? For what it is worth, if the husband has been positioning himself for a divorce for years, he waited about two years too long. The tax treatment of alimony changed dramatically recently.
Along a similar vein, I wouldn't make too much of the cash revenue drying up in his med adjacent field. Those folks used to get a lot of cash and checks but I haven't written mine a check since 2003. Now I pay with the card linked to my HSA.
It bothers me a great deal to be sticking up for the husband that you describe as an asshole. He may still be positioned for a split or hiding assets or revenue, but he sure hasn't timed it well and if he is hiding revenue or assets, he probably hasn't been doing it by pocketing cash receipts.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,890
Member is Online
|
Post by haapai on Feb 6, 2019 6:45:21 GMT -5
Definitely tell your friend that for divorces finalized after 1/1/2019, alimony is no longer deductible by the payer and taxable for the recipient. If they divorce, he'll be taxed on any alimony that he pays and she won't be taxed on any that she receives.
This change in the law slipped past me and may have slipped past her husband. It may be a game-changer.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 6, 2019 6:50:41 GMT -5
I had no idea. Thanks. I wonder why the change?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,890
Member is Online
|
Post by haapai on Feb 6, 2019 7:02:04 GMT -5
It generally yields more tax revenue, but yeah, I'm also surprised to see it changed.
The old tax treatment of alimony paid allowed the payer parties involved to retain quite a bit of the tax advantages of filing a joint return without actually being married. In effect, they still got to benefit from the space in the low tax brackets that the lower-earning former spouse wasn't using.
|
|