Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I remarry I lose all my survivor benefits from my dearly departed husband. Would anybody actually remarry and lose all this? That seems totally crazy to me, but, I'm curious do people actually do that?
Depends on the couple. Having been active on widow boards, I saw this come up a lot. Some remarried; some decided they were going to not remarry or wait until they could do so without losing benefits.
Lets say that pension receiving person moves in with someone and decides not to marry them in order to keep the pension, is there an ethical issue with that?
No, there is no ethical issue. Her husband earned his pension. He died before he was able to collect on it. Since they were married when he passed away, the money was supposed to be theirs. She isn't collecting alimony. This was money earned that was supposed to support them in their retirement. If they had divorced - that's different. I think it depends then on how long they were married for.
Quote:
Is it all that different than a welfare receiving individual moving in with someone and not marrying in order to stay on the dole?
Does it make a difference if the pension is tax payer funded (like welfare) as opposed to private sector funded?
Those are worthy of ethical debates, IMO, as general concepts.
It's completely different. Welfare is nothing like a pension.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,020,723 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
No, there is no ethical issue. Her husband earned his pension. He died before he was able to collect on it. Since they were married when he passed away, the money was supposed to be theirs.
But if the clause of the pension is that if the person marries again they lose that pension (so it is only earned with conditions), and then they effectively partner as if they are married, but technically do not in order to circumvent the rules, it isn't technically fraud, but it may be considered acting in a fraudulent manner.
I personally think it is weird to have such a clause, but that's another issue entirely. I think some of these (if you remarry) types of clauses are relics. They assume that people will re-marry if they re-partner and don't consider shacking up.
These old rules should probably be revisited to either remove re-coupling clauses entirely, or to say if you re-marry or co-habitate you will lose the funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
It's completely different. Welfare is nothing like a pension.
Its the funding source that might be similar. If they're both coming from public funds, there is a public issue.
The changing their course of action, in order to avoid losing money that according to the terms of the plan is not owed to someone if they re-couple, is similar. And certainly if there is a manipulation of the system in order to continue to secure public funds, there is an ethical issue involved, IMO.
But if the clause of the pension is that if the person marries again they lose that pension (so it is only earned with conditions), and then they effectively partner as if they are married, but technically do not in order to circumvent the rules, it isn't technically fraud, but it may be considered acting in a fraudulent manner.
I personally think it is weird to have such a clause, but that's another issue entirely. I think some of these (if you remarry) types of clauses are relics. They assume that people will re-marry if they re-partner and don't consider shacking up.
These old rules should probably be revisited to either remove re-coupling clauses entirely, or to say if you re-marry or co-habitate you will lose the funding.
Its the funding source that might be similar. If they're both coming from public funds, there is a public issue.
The changing their course of action, in order to avoid losing money that according to the terms of the plan is not owed to someone if they re-couple, is similar. And certainly if there is a manipulation of the system in order to continue to secure public funds, there is an ethical issue involved, IMO.
I don't see it the way that you do at all. Pension is earned. It's money that has been earned and if the person dies before they are able to collect it, then I feel like their work was wasted. And pensions are funded by all different sources - employers, unions, the government, etc. If I had a pension and died before I could enjoy it - I would want my husband to enjoy it - even if he was with someone else during those years. That doesn't negate our marriage nor my wanting him to be able to enjoy what we worked for while I was living.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,020,723 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
I don't see it the way that you do at all. Pension is earned. It's money that has been earned and if the person dies before they are able to collect it, then I feel like their work was wasted. And pensions are funded by all different sources - employers, unions, the government, etc. If I had a pension and died before I could enjoy it - I would want my husband to enjoy it - even if he was with someone else during those years. That doesn't negate our marriage nor my wanting him to be able to enjoy what we worked for while I was living.
If it is earned, like a salary, how can it be taken away?
It isn't like salary, if it can be taken away, it's in that situation more a survivor benefit, than earned money. This is a particular type of pension.
All pensions aren't alike. Some are funded by the employee primarily, some are funded by the company or promises of the government... some are just like earnings, while others are benefits.
If it was as simple as you state, then there would be no way the pension benefits could be rescinded since the husband had earned them. That's obviously not the case here. There were conditions to the benefit.
I, personally, agree with you, but if I'm dead and there are conditions tied to the survivor benefits, then those are the rules. Trying to circumvent rules for financial gain is definitely an ethical issue.
If it is earned, like a salary, how can it be taken away?
It isn't like salary, if it can be taken away, it's in that situation more a survivor benefit, than earned money. This is a particular type of pension.
All pensions aren't alike. Some are funded by the employee primarily, some are funded by the company or promises of the government... some are just like earnings, while others are benefits.
If it was as simple as you state, then there would be no way the pension benefits could be rescinded since the husband had earned them. That's obviously not the case here. There were conditions to the benefit.
I, personally, agree with you, but if I'm dead and there are conditions tied to the survivor benefits, then those are the rules. Trying to circumvent rules for financial gain is definitely an ethical issue.
Whether they are earnings or benefits - I still see them as something "earned." I just see things differently than you. I don't see it as an ethical issue because I don't think there should be limitations on the funds in the first place. But all this is really beside the point for the purposes of this thread. It's okay if we see things differently.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,701 posts, read 41,783,055 times
Reputation: 41386
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormynh
If I remarry I lose all my survivor benefits from my dearly departed husband. Would anybody actually remarry and lose all this? That seems totally crazy to me, but, I'm curious do people actually do that?
Yes people do that and financially, it is very stupid most of the time.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,020,723 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
Whether they are earnings or benefits - I still see them as something "earned." I just see things differently than you. I don't see it as an ethical issue because I don't think there should be limitations on the funds in the first place. But all this is really beside the point for the purposes of this thread. It's okay if we see things differently.
As I said, neither do I. But if these rules exist, we can't just choose to circumvent them because we don't agree with them, without it being an ethical issue. It isn't necessarily wrong to do so, but it is an issue worthy of discussion. People and society circumvent rules (even ones it creates itself) all the time when they think the rules aren't ethical; those are worthy of discussion, IMO, as they might highlight laws or policies that need changing.
And actually, I think it is directly applicable to this thread.
If I remarry I lose all my survivor benefits from my dearly departed husband. Would anybody actually remarry and lose all this? That seems totally crazy to me, but, I'm curious do people actually do that?
Dearly departed? That's not how you came across in earlier threads.
If I recall correctly, you were jumping for joy and counting the money from the moment you found out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmsn4Life
As I recall, you were living apart for a year (with another man) and actively seeking a divorce.
Thank you. She's trying to rewrite history.
If I were the other person, I would feel some type of way if my spouse refused to marry me because they would lose out on a pension.
It becomes a matter of practicality, especially if the surviving spouse and/or their new mate have no other means of support.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
