Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-30-2015, 08:52 PM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,690,076 times
Reputation: 25340

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Am sorry but someone at 62 securing SS benefits for children 10 and 7mths is one of the problems with SS. Only in the USA would everyone pay the same rates but others get more out of it.
Have u read anything about the social systems in Scandinavian countries or France?

I think the US is actually pretty paltry about its social contract...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2015, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
5,306 posts, read 5,984,594 times
Reputation: 10851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
<snip> and put a $$ family cap on the whole shebang
There is a max for the family but it does not include former spouses (for obvious reasons).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2015, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
25,591 posts, read 56,363,195 times
Reputation: 23297
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
There is a max for the family but it does not include former spouses (for obvious reasons).
I've read about the family cap, but how does it work if deceased leaves three spouses (two divorced w/marriages over ten years each) and one widow - and a total of six kids - two with each of the three spouses???

One family cap divided by three - or is it three separate family caps??? And then all three spouses get survivor benefits??? All on one earner?.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2015, 10:32 PM
 
31,750 posts, read 26,706,619 times
Reputation: 24626
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
Have u read anything about the social systems in Scandinavian countries or France?

I think the US is actually pretty paltry about its social contract...
Know the French social security system well enough. It is vast and yes rather generous and comprehensive by comparison to the USA. As a result it is also *very* expensive and has been running deficits for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security_in_France


The French social security system : organisational structure, financing, scope and coverage

In an attempt to rein in some of the costs certain changes were passed to the laws many of where were subsequently reversed. In particular the cancellation of certain survivor spouse benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2015, 10:37 PM
 
31,750 posts, read 26,706,619 times
Reputation: 24626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
OASI = Old Age and Survivors' Insurance.

Jealousy is very unbecoming.



Yes.
Jealousy of what? Bringing children into this world when there are certainly more days behind me than in future? Jealous of wondering who or what will provide for said children after my demise and relying heavily upon the state to assume that burden? I don't think so.

Any man siring children at sixty or quite frankly even 50 years of age should either be very wealthy or have a rock solid plan of providing. Winging it based upon SS just does not count.

Puts one in mind of that congressman from California who got shot of his first wife and remarried at an advanced age. He then produced of his new wife and promptly filed for and apparently received SS benefits for his children. This even though the man is quite well off and neither himself nor his family are in any great want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2015, 10:48 PM
 
31,750 posts, read 26,706,619 times
Reputation: 24626
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
And I wonder if the fact that gays can now be legal,spouses and claim spousal benefits has much to do with closing this "option" and no one will address that fact

By allowing that benefit to gay couples you in effect have added tremendous number of eligible spousal recepients that were not part of the actuarial computation that SS runs on...
No one will say so, but have a hunch Justice Kennedy's vast new expansion of marriage is going to fuel many changes. This latest one may or may not be a reaction but you have to think the bean counters/number crunchers that work on these sort of things have to be looking at the ramifications of F&S and other "benefits" tided to marriage now being open to anyone.

When SS was made legal in California a year or so ago after Prop 8 was struck down one of the first articles either in the Washington Post or LA Times was that gays now should recalculate their retirement plans and planning. It went on to explain how a real life married gay couple could get "more" and "extra" from Social Security by using F&S.

You have no small number of high earning gay men marrying others in the same income bracket, thus a potential expansion of better off to wealthy married couples who could in theory use F&S to enhance their SS benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,823 posts, read 14,898,817 times
Reputation: 16537
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbseer View Post
I think I am about to get sick.

Quote:
To summarize, the new budget ​drastically cuts Social Security benefits for many of those now collecting, drastically cuts benefits for many of those who were about to collect, exacerbates Social Security work disincentive and induces households to do exactly the wrong thing, namely take their benefits too early at the cost of permanently lower benefits. And many of these changes will particularly hurt the middle class, women and families with disabled children.
The first act Paul Ryan does as speaker of the house is stick a shiv between our ribs?

Let me see if I am getting this right.

I am 67 1/2 and my wife is just about to turn 66.

My FRA benefit is $2,300 but if I wait another 2 1/2 years it will have grown to over $3,000 and working to 70 has been my goal for several years now.

I am about to file and suspend so my wife can collect 50% of my FRA benefit or $1,150/month since there is no benefit for her delaying any longer.

If my wife collected on her benefit alone she would get around $600/month since much of her life was a stay at home mommy.

The way I understand it is if I file she will receive 50% of my FRA benefit but if I suspend the money disappears? Do I have that right?

If true what a kick in the butt this is!

But on the plus side she could file her own benefits, receive her $600 (less $105 for Medicare Part B) and then file for 50% of my FRA benefit when I hit 70?

Now it looks like Paul Ryan and friends will personally cost me $550/mo or $16,500 over the course of the next 2 1/2 years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 06:54 AM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,690,076 times
Reputation: 25340
You are late to the party and haven't read the thread...

The bill was amended --no one currently receiving benefits due to using a file/suspend strategy will lose anything
There is a window for people who will be 62 by end of 2015 or older to do what you want I think:
Have higher earner file and suspend and have spouse file a restricted application for spousal benefits

You and others still eligible have 180 days from bill signing to exercise those options
Once the window closes however, it is nailed shut for the restricted-spousal only- application. It is still possible to file and later suspend but not to enable a spousal only application

There are other updated articles with better explanations than that original of Kotlikoff
Several of them with links posted here...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,823 posts, read 14,898,817 times
Reputation: 16537
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
You are late to the party and haven't read the thread...

The bill was amended --no one currently receiving benefits due to using a file/suspend strategy will lose anything
There is a window for people who will be 62 by end of 2015 or older to do what you want I think:
Have higher earner file and suspend and have spouse file a restricted application for spousal benefits

You and others still eligible have 180 days from bill signing to exercise those options
Once the window closes however, it is nailed shut for the restricted-spousal only- application. It is still possible to file and later suspend but not to enable a spousal only application

There are other updated articles with better explanations than that original of Kotlikoff
Several of them with links posted here...
I guess I better go back and read the later postings.

The bill hasn't been signed yet but assuming it is in the next week people have until late April to early May to act without penalty.

Looks like I scraped under the wire!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 07:37 AM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,690,076 times
Reputation: 25340
this is Kaltikoff's most recent article and he is still wrong about cutting any benefits already being received under file/suspend I believe
Column: Congress is pulling the rug out from people's retirement decisions

He makes a lot of money touting himself as an authority on SS ins/outs so you would think he would not make that mistake

Michael Kitces's article says current recipients are grandfathered and safe
https://www.kitces.com/blog/congress...ty-strategies/

And there is a window for people who fit the age requirements to still file for those two,options

My husband and I plan to do just that because if we don't I have to,file for both spousal and personal and because of my teacher's pension would lose money because of the offset and windfall penalties...
I retired early to legally protect my spousal portion and if I don't file a restricted application for just spousal, I would lose money every month...
I could live with not claiming until my husband does at 70 but I hate the offset/windfall rules.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top