U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-22-2015, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Florida Gulf Coast
4,434 posts, read 5,991,476 times
Reputation: 7275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13 View Post
I understand that you think your ex-wife collecting on your record is unfair, but how else do we (as a society) provide for women who dedicated their lives to keeping the home fires burning for their husband and raising his children, only to be abandoned in middle age without the wherewithal to provide for themselves in retirement?

Many, many abandoned ex-wives and widows will be thrown a lifeline in the form of SS benefits based on their ex-husbands' records, which will allow them to eke out their lives with a bit of dignity, instead of sinking into desperate poverty. Will some former wives benefit undeservedly from society's decision to help displaced homemakers? Obviously. But that's the price we pay to lift the others from the gutter.
Good point, but what about the wives who still have husbands who are alive, have not abandoned them and are making a good living? This is the case of a friend who got married right out of high school, had a family and never worked a day in her life. Husband still works and suffice it to say, they make out very well....she has a great life. She turns 65 and starts collecting $800/mo. in HIS SS benefits that even she admits she was surprised to get, and obviously doesn't need. It's just extra seed money for her casino trips. Now I'm sorry but it just galls me that SS still works this way.

As far as the OP's original topic, I would not be happy at all to have to live in subsidized housing and I hope I never get to that point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2015, 11:53 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,281,131 times
Reputation: 8971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
So, you just didn't realize that you would be graduating and losing your college job?

LOL, you didn't think ahead? Didn't line up a job for after graduation? Didn't intern anywhere?

I'm amazed you made it through college!

Gosh, I didn't even finish high school; imagine what I could have accomplished with a college degree! Instead of making $72k as I am now, I could have probably added another $100k to that!

I worked my way through school with multiple crappy-wage jobs, and literally could not afford the foregone wages of taking an internship.

Please tell us what you would have done with a political science degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 12:14 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,281,131 times
Reputation: 8971
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I think the tough part comes when comparing someone who has nothing in savings to speak of, no paid for home or condo, and gets $1,200 social security. This opens a lot of doors for them in assistance.

Compare that to someone else who has a small paid for house, two hundred thousand in savings, and a $1,200 soc. security check. Who is going to be better off? My guess is #1 is more secure than #2.

#1 is going to get a generous housing subsidy, utilities and maybe cable or internet. A little food stamps, a free phone, medicare/medicaid, free prescriptions, free dental and eye glasses and free transportation.

#2 gets to pay real estate taxes, home insurance, home upkeep and repairs, medigap and co-pays to doctors and maybe deductibles, prescriptions, utilities, phone, internet, cable. Hmmmm, what to chose, what to chose.

Only consolation is #2 will most likely one day become #1. So for #1 and #2 - the "inbetweeners" (my made up word), I guess it's good that it is there.

??? ??? ???

I know people living on $1,200 SS who are homeless, have no food stamps, and no phone. Wherever do you come up with this stuff?

In Michigan (and probably some other states), #2 gets the low, low homestead property tax rate, plus a poverty deferral of property taxes, so they don't have to actually pay property taxes until they move, die, or sell their home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 12:31 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,281,131 times
Reputation: 8971
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
We can debate interminably whether government benefits for the poor/elderly/infirm/unfortunate are excessively generous, or unconscionably stingy, or just right. This is as much of a political as an economic issue. But to me it seems that regardless of our position on the above, there's an obvious problem with "the system" a problem on which most of us can agree: persons who receive benefits on account of not working, would lose most or all of those benefits if they attempted to work. If earning $1 necessarily phases out $1 in benefits (or sometimes $2 in benefits), why work?

We need to recast the benefits-system, so that those who do work can nevertheless continue to receive a modicum of assistance, and that only those outright unable to work receive a full package of aid.

But that's the Reagan Way!

In the early '80s, Reagan proposed - and Congress agreed - that welfare benefits be cut $1 for every $1 earned by the recipient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:13 AM
 
1,887 posts, read 1,464,421 times
Reputation: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert View Post
And then worked in equivalent jobs at equivalent pay for the next 37 years. Too timid to make any kind of move. You had chances and opportunities to make things happen for yourself but refused. In short, you've forfeited your right to complain at this late date.

Know what I did when I found myself in your exact situation at the same age? I joined the Army. And the next year went to OCS. And eventually retired from the Army.

You (if your story is true) flipped burgers for the next 30+ years, throwing your life away. And you now expect some kind of sympathy? Forget that!

But enough of this and enough of you.
Tough love all over the place. John Wayne style. No courtesy or compassion here, Pilgrim!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 06:20 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,764 posts, read 7,894,230 times
Reputation: 13085
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post

Please tell us what you would have done with a political science degree.
I would have moved to D.C. and rented a room in a flop house or the YMCA and pounded the pavements for a job.

What did YOU think you could do with that degree?

Did you know all along for four years (or more) that your degree would be *worthless* or did you just realize that at graduation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,396,738 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon08 View Post
Good point, but what about the wives who still have husbands who are alive, have not abandoned them and are making a good living? This is the case of a friend who got married right out of high school, had a family and never worked a day in her life. Husband still works and suffice it to say, they make out very well....she has a great life. She turns 65 and starts collecting $800/mo. in HIS SS benefits that even she admits she was surprised to get, and obviously doesn't need. It's just extra seed money for her casino trips. Now I'm sorry but it just galls me that SS still works this way.

As far as the OP's original topic, I would not be happy at all to have to live in subsidized housing and I hope I never get to that point.
If the wife gets $800, that's 50% of what her husband gets which would be $1600 a month, for a grand total of $2400 a month and $28,800 a year. I hardly consider that "a good living", which is probably why the husband continues to work. If the wife had worked, her SS under her own account might be considerably more than $800 a month. If her husband dies, her SS would drop to about $1280 a month.

SS was designed in to work this way because it originated during a period when most married women were not expected to work outside the home although many frequently did. Even today, it's needed because many women take years off to raise their children and don't have 35 years in the system or they only worked part-time or they worked for lower pay than their husbands, and frequently, it's a combination, all of which result in them having a lower SS retirement benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 19,109,559 times
Reputation: 15656
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I think the tough part comes when comparing someone who has nothing in savings to speak of, no paid for home or condo, and gets $1,200 social security. This opens a lot of doors for them in assistance.

Compare that to someone else who has a small paid for house, two hundred thousand in savings, and a $1,200 soc. security check. Who is going to be better off? My guess is #1 is more secure than #2.

#1 is going to get a generous housing subsidy, utilities and maybe cable or internet. A little food stamps, a free phone, medicare/medicaid, free prescriptions, free dental and eye glasses and free transportation.

#2 gets to pay real estate taxes, home insurance, home upkeep and repairs, medigap and co-pays to doctors and maybe deductibles, prescriptions, utilities, phone, internet, cable. Hmmmm, what to chose, what to chose.

Only consolation is #2 will most likely one day become #1. So for #1 and #2 - the "inbetweeners" (my made up word), I guess it's good that it is there.
My observations, too, among those I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 06:53 AM
 
72,914 posts, read 72,747,988 times
Reputation: 50436
Depending where you live and medical insurance costs you may be underfunded for a middle class lifestyle with just 1 million (40k a year ) but with flexibility to move you would be just fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,756 posts, read 4,255,393 times
Reputation: 6868
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I think the tough part comes when comparing someone who has nothing in savings to speak of, no paid for home or condo, and gets $1,200 social security. This opens a lot of doors for them in assistance.

Compare that to someone else who has a small paid for house, two hundred thousand in savings, and a $1,200 soc. security check. Who is going to be better off? My guess is #1 is more secure than #2.

#1 is going to get a generous housing subsidy, utilities and maybe cable or internet. A little food stamps, a free phone, medicare/medicaid, free prescriptions, free dental and eye glasses and free transportation.

#2 gets to pay real estate taxes, home insurance, home upkeep and repairs, medigap and co-pays to doctors and maybe deductibles, prescriptions, utilities, phone, internet, cable. Hmmmm, what to chose, what to chose.

Only consolation is #2 will most likely one day become #1. So for #1 and #2 - the "inbetweeners" (my made up word), I guess it's good that it is there.
If #2 has her $200,000 in a retirement account, i.e. 401K, IRA, etc. she is more likely to be eligible for food stamps and other assistance.

Here's why: homes are not "countable assets" nor are funds in a retirement account. Folks older than 60 reduce their income when excess medical costs (over $35/month) are subtracted from the income, as are excess shelter costs (includes utility allowance of $406/month, home insurance, and real estate taxes), a standard deduction and if she is still working, an extra 20% deduction from her wages.

A final net income of $1200/month is well over the $973/mth maximum net income allowed for eligibility for food stamps. #1 would lose out in this scenario. However, because #2 is eligible for food stamps, she is also automatically eligible for a "free phone". Not so #1. A generous housing subsidy? It depends on where #1 and #2 live.

If #2 has $200,000 in taxable accounts, she could still move into subsidized housing depending on her state of residence or, more likely, she will receive a break on her property taxes. In my state, she could end up paying no property taxes and $0 in income taxes.

It's complicated. Only if you are uninformed (as most folks are in these matters) would you choose #1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top