lurkyloo
Junior Associate
“Time means nothing now,” said Toad. “It is just the thing that happens between snacks.”
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 11:26:56 GMT -5
Posts: 5,782
|
Post by lurkyloo on May 10, 2011 10:35:08 GMT -5
If someone is retired with a pension, and didn't pay into SS, but has a wife (married more than 10 years) who did and is collecting...can he apply to collect on her account (1/2 of her check) just like a SAHP? Anybody have real-life experience here?
Thanks!
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 10, 2011 10:45:17 GMT -5
According to what I've read on the SS web site, yes. A divorced person who was married more than 10 years can collect SS based on their ex-spouse's earnings record. It doesn't matter whether or not the applicant was a SAHP. It generally doesn't matter whether or not the applicant has a pension. (Note that getting certain types of government, or government related, pensions may make you ineligible for SS, even when you have paid in and meet all other SS eligibility requirements.)
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on May 10, 2011 10:58:13 GMT -5
Mom couldn't get SS because she was a postal employee and didn't pay in to SS for 20 years. She did pay before she went postal but was a housewife for 20 years too.
Her pension was less than she would have gotten as widow on dad's SS so now she is allowed the difference. This means her pension is worthless to her.
A SAHP has no special rights over other non working spouses. I could collect on my ex but never had children, they aren't required. Not all housewives have children.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,128
|
Post by alabamagal on May 10, 2011 11:15:59 GMT -5
What the others said. If the person retired with a pension but didn't pay SS, I think the only possibility is that they were government or government related employee (like teacher) so are ineligible for SS
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,128
|
Post by alabamagal on May 10, 2011 11:16:46 GMT -5
And if you are following the rules (no matter how bizarre they seem) you are not abusing the system.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 10, 2011 11:17:31 GMT -5
If someone is retired with a pension, and didn't pay into SS, but has a wife (married more than 10 years) who did and is collecting.
Anyone can collect based on their spouse's earnings if the spouse paid SS taxes. How is that "abusing the system?"?
I thought your post referred to churches who wrapped private school tuition into donations so that people could effectively deduct tuition labeled as "donations".....THAT's "abusing the system? (imo)
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on May 10, 2011 11:58:36 GMT -5
Either spouse can retire and collect on the other spouses SS. For example I start collecting. My wife can get 1/2 the amount of my check and then file for her entire amount at 65.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 10, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -5
Anyone can collect based on their spouse's earnings if the spouse paid SS taxes. How is that "abusing the system?"? Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that they're taking from a pension system that they never paid into.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 10, 2011 12:48:57 GMT -5
Anyone can collect based on their spouse's earnings if the spouse paid SS taxes. How is that "abusing the system?"? Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that they're taking from a pension system that they never paid into. I don't think that following the rules are "abusing the system"
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 10, 2011 13:00:36 GMT -5
I don't think that following the rules are "abusing the system" Depends on how crooked the rules are. For example, if I have enough pull with my state senator to get him to attach a rider to a bill that says all men with the name Dark get a $10k non refundable tax credit, and the bill passes, I wouldn't be abusing the system when I took it every year?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on May 10, 2011 13:09:24 GMT -5
At present, you can still collect at 62, pay it all back at 65 and refile to collect the full amount. I love the SS rules!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 10, 2011 13:11:11 GMT -5
At present, you can still collect at 62, pay it all back at 65 and refile to collect the full amount. I love the SS rules! Not any more. They changed that rule a few months back.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 10, 2011 13:12:53 GMT -5
At present, you can still collect at 62, pay it all back at 65 and refile to collect the full amount. Do you know of any banks that make loans to seniors for that specific purpose? I've always wondered. It seems like an easy way to make a few bucks for them. I'm thinking you'd structure the payment so the bank would get paid back out of the difference between the two amounts, so the senior wouldn't see a drop in income by taking the loan, and then when it's paid off, plus a little interest of course, they'd get a bigger check. It seems like it should be a workable idea.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on May 10, 2011 13:15:04 GMT -5
Gramma, I thought that was a pending change. Dark, my accountant recommended I NOT do that. Get it for as long as you can was his feeling.
|
|
Agatha
Familiar Member
Yes, I guess I'm a rather sedate dragon. Fire-breathing only at request or when absolutely necessary
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:21:21 GMT -5
Posts: 644
|
Post by Agatha on May 10, 2011 14:21:20 GMT -5
Anyone can collect based on their spouse's earnings if the spouse paid SS taxes. How is that "abusing the system?"? Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that they're taking from a pension system that they never paid into. I don't think that following the rules are "abusing the system" I'm planning on "abusing" the system when I retire and use my late husband's SS instead of my own. He never collected a cent of it since he died prior to retirement. I don't think he would growl at all. I actually think he would be proud. "Go for it, honey!"
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 10, 2011 15:02:11 GMT -5
Gramma, I thought that was a pending change. Dark, my accountant recommended I NOT do that. Get it for as long as you can was his feeling. They changed in last Dec. I was seriously considering it, but I dithered too long... Social Security Eliminates Payback Option f you were wondering whether to take advantage of the strategy to repay all the Social Security benefits you have received so far and trade them in for a bigger monthly check, forget about it. The Social Security Administration announced Wednesday that, effective immediately, the payback strategy is no longer an option.
Read more: www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/social-security-eliminates-
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 21, 2024 15:16:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 16:08:52 GMT -5
For example I start collecting. My wife can get 1/2 the amount of my check and then file for her entire amount at 65. ++++++++++++++++ I'd check this idea out very carefully!!! SS doesn't like this changing stuff and really doesn't like double dipping.
|
|
lurkyloo
Junior Associate
“Time means nothing now,” said Toad. “It is just the thing that happens between snacks.”
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 11:26:56 GMT -5
Posts: 5,782
|
Post by lurkyloo on May 10, 2011 23:34:08 GMT -5
True, I don't much like the idea of paying out to someone who never paid in...but then again, they made up these rules and bound me by them without asking what I thought, either. Too, DH and I pay in the max and near-max, respectively, and we fully expect to be means-tested out of any benefits by the time we get there. It'd be nice to see some of that money at least benefiting people who are important to us. Crone: I actually was going to write SAHW and then thought "no, that's sexist" so I wound up being offensive to the child-free instead (and I'm one of them!) The pension in question is a GM pension; does that count as government?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 10, 2011 23:55:24 GMT -5
Federal employees get both a pension and SS, but we pay into both. That is those under FERS, those under the old civil service system don't get any SS.
|
|
Waffle
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 11:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,391
|
Post by Waffle on May 11, 2011 9:35:51 GMT -5
I actually was going to write SAHW and then thought "no, that's sexist" so I wound up being offensive to the child-free instead (and I'm one of them!) Lurkyloo - just say that SAHP stands for Stay at Home Person - that's how my mind interpreted it anyway.
|
|
CarolinaKat
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 16:10:37 GMT -5
Posts: 6,364
|
Post by CarolinaKat on May 11, 2011 9:37:05 GMT -5
I actually was going to write SAHW and then thought "no, that's sexist" so I wound up being offensive to the child-free instead (and I'm one of them!) Lurkyloo - just say that SAHP stands for Stay at Home Person - that's how my mind interpreted it anyway. Or you could say SAHS- Stay at Home Spouse
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on May 11, 2011 9:45:50 GMT -5
I actually was going to write SAHW and then thought "no, that's sexist" so I wound up being offensive to the child-free instead (and I'm one of them!) Lurkyloo - just say that SAHP stands for Stay at Home Person - that's how my mind interpreted it anyway. I interpret it as Stay at Home Parent but as a parent I tend to filter things though a "parent lens"
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 11, 2011 12:25:21 GMT -5
Too bad we can't suck them dry and throw them away. Everything is about money today and if we can the hidden costs on someone else to pay, drive them into poverty and pontificate about their presumed uselessness, all the better. That's not what I'm saying. I have no problem with having a social safety net in this country. I have no problem with the concept of welfare, although I do have a few issues with the way we run ours. SS wasn't supposed to be welfare though, it's a pension system. I can't get a check from GM for life just because I need one. I can get a check from them for life if I trade them a few decades of my time. That's how real pensions work. Old ladies needing welfare should be able to go down to the welfare office and get it. They shouldn't be able to draw on a pension system that they never worked to pay into. Or, alternately, we could make SS a welfare system, but that means it should be completely means tested. Old folks who need the money could get it, but old folks who had a pension or their own savings wouldn't. I don't like the idea of it working both ways.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 21, 2024 15:16:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 6:45:44 GMT -5
Think of it as a built-in survivor's benefit, Dark. Many pensions actually require a spouse to sign in order to waive that option when the pensioner begins collecting.
It balances out. It will be a moot point in a generation . . . not because SS will be phased out (although it might be), but because more women will have earned their own benefit. People have forgotten that two-income families for those above the poverty-level is a relatively recent development.
Edith Bunker didn't work outside the home that I remember.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 12, 2011 12:01:46 GMT -5
That would be one way to handle it.
But consider this. When the SS system was first designed (and the welfare system didn't exist as it does today), one parent in most families was a stay at home parent. The SS withholding was established at a level that would provide a retirement safety net, not only for working people, but for their non-working spouses. People paid their withholding with the expectation that the SS system would provide the benefits that had been promised. Over the past 30 or 40 years, a two income family has become the norm rather than the exception to the rule. With the increase in the ratio of working people putting money into the SS system vs. people drawing benefits, the SS system should be flush with money, right? Well, seems to me that the changing demographics of the workplace should have the SS system swimming in money to pay benefits in the future. But what should have happened didn't happen. But it's not the fault of non-working widows and widowers. The system was designed so it would provide for their needs. Rather, one should be asking the politicians about why they so badly mismanaged the country's retirement safety net.
By the way, whether the old lady gets welfare or SS, the benefits will be paid for by working taxpayers. Does it really make any difference which government bureaucracy's logo is on the check? It's still your money paying for the benefits.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 12, 2011 12:33:05 GMT -5
By the way, whether the old lady gets welfare or SS, the benefits will be paid for by working taxpayers. Does it really make any difference which government bureaucracy's logo is on the check? It's still your money paying for the benefits. Of course it matters, welfare is means tested. Only the little old ladies who actually need the money get it. SS spousal benefits are automatic. It doesn't matter if the little old lady in question is a multi millionaire, she still gets half her hubbies check, even if he's still alive, even if he's collecting, even if they're still married, even if he's also got millions to his name. Also, there were no benefits for spouses or dependents in the original SS bill. It was passed about five years later. The disability benefits weren't added until 20 years later or so. They're part of the reason that SS taxes, which used to be only 1% had to climb to where they are now. The COLA adjustment, that everyone takes for granted now, didn't get passed until 1972 for crying out loud when the program was already almost 40 years old.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 12, 2011 13:17:08 GMT -5
By the way, whether the old lady gets welfare or SS, the benefits will be paid for by working taxpayers. Does it really make any difference which government bureaucracy's logo is on the check? It's still your money paying for the benefits. Of course it matters, welfare is means tested. Only the little old ladies who actually need the money get it. SS spousal benefits are automatic. It doesn't matter if the little old lady in question is a multi millionaire, she still gets half her hubbies check, even if he's still alive, even if he's collecting, even if they're still married, even if he's also got millions to his name. Also, there were no benefits for spouses or dependents in the original SS bill. It was passed about five years later. The disability benefits weren't added until 20 years later or so. They're part of the reason that SS taxes, which used to be only 1% had to climb to where they are now. The COLA adjustment, that everyone takes for granted now, didn't get passed until 1972 for crying out loud when the program was already almost 40 years old. Dark, I'm not aware of ANY welfare program for "little old ladies".... The only welfare programs that currently exist (to the best of my knowledge) are for families with children..... And, SS, IS means tested in that it's taxable for those with an income over a certain amount..... But I do understand your point.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 12, 2011 13:23:31 GMT -5
Dark, I'm not aware of ANY welfare program for "little old ladies".... Low cost senior housing, utility assistance, community paid ride services, meals on wheels, some states have property tax exemptions for the elderly, you've never heard of any of these things? And they all exist while we also give them SS that they didn't pay into.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on May 12, 2011 13:25:40 GMT -5
Gardening,
SSI is available as means tested benefits for little old ladies. I know it is administered by the SSA but the funds do not come out of the Social Security/FICA fund and are instead coming from the general fund.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on May 12, 2011 13:31:29 GMT -5
Think of it as a built-in survivor's benefit, Dark. Many pensions actually require a spouse to sign in order to waive that option when the pensioner begins collecting. It balances out. It will be a moot point in a generation . . . not because SS will be phased out (although it might be), but because more women will have earned their own benefit. People have forgotten that two-income families for those above the poverty-level is a relatively recent development. Edith Bunker didn't work outside the home that I remember. Exactly right. I put in my (40) quarters, but at much much lower wages than my DH. If we both live to be (62) and the system is still in tact, we will both collect, but mine will be a pittance. If he should die before me, I will take the survivor's benefit over my own benefit. I didn't DIRECTLY "earn" survivor's benefits, but I gave up my career to stay home and raise our son. That is the ONLY reason that I don't have SS benefits that are as good as DH's on my own. When he takes his pension from the company, it will be set up so that if he should predecease me, I will get exactly the same amount from his pension - nothing will change. So even though he is dead, I will continue to receive his pension even though, again, I did not directly work for the company for over 31 years.
|
|