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.
But that still does not explain the need for the spouse receiving 50% of their husband's benefit while he is alive.
So you're suggesting that the cost of living (including the cost of healthcare not covered 100% by Medicare) for two elderly adults is the same as for one elderly adult? I think you need to rethink that.
So you're suggesting that the cost of living (including the cost of healthcare not covered 100% by Medicare) for two elderly adults is the same as for one elderly adult? I think you need to rethink that.
As has been discussed many times here and elsewhere, Social Security was not intended to be the sole income in retirement. I'm not suggesting that spousal benefits be discontinued immediately - it would have to be a gradual change.
As has been discussed many times here and elsewhere, Social Security was not intended to be the sole income in retirement. I'm not suggesting that spousal benefits be discontinued immediately - it would have to be a gradual change.
I too favor a gradual elimination of spousal benefits. In today's world, it's a conscious, strategic decision when one spouse stays out of the work force for much of his/her life. There's no reason SS should subsidize it.
I am in favor of keeping some form of survivor benefits and don't have any problem with a survivor collecting the the greater of his/her own benefits or the deceased spouse's.
I too favor a gradual elimination of spousal benefits. In today's world, it's a conscious, strategic decision when one spouse stays out of the work force for much of his/her life. There's no reason SS should subsidize it.
I am in favor of keeping some form of survivor benefits and don't have any problem with a survivor collecting the the greater of his/her own benefits or the deceased spouse's.
A number of others agree with you, but larger will fight to the death.
As has been discussed many times here and elsewhere, Social Security was not intended to be the sole income in retirement.
Yet it has been and is for many people, so what you've expressed here is (throwing your own words back at you) and "outdated concept".
Changes are needed, no question, so I'm not averse to phasing spousal benefits out, but only if it can be shown that it would have a substantially positive impact on the whole and that it wouldn't result in non-working spouses falling through the gaps.
I am one of those non working spouses, which hopefully will not fall through the gap since my husband and I applied for benefits to start in January 2016.
I stayed home and raised five children, by the time I had done that My health had deteriorated and I was disabled, HOWEVER since I had not worked I did not qualify for any type of disability .
I am 63 now not yet full retirement age with almost no credits of my own, since he has filed now I will receive 1020.00 a month spousal, out of which I will have to pay non Medicare healthcare until I am 65.
So while the stay at home mom or dad may be less the norm, we are not all gone either.
Where I live, there are many Stay At Home Mothers, especially during the birth to grade school years. That's how long I was a SAHM: 11 years. It was my privilege to raise my children 24/7 and manage everything for my working spouse. There's no way he could have focused on his career so intensely without me at home doing all the cleaning, shopping, meal prep, laundry, errands, bill-paying and all other finances, investing, tax return preparing, auto maintenance, yard maintenance, household contractor interviewing/hiring/supervising...everything that did not involve reporting to my DH's office and sitting behind his desk, was my responsibility. If he got home by 8pm, it was early. Somewhere between 9 and 10pm was more usual. By then the children had been asleep for hours. That was our routine 6 days/week, and sometimes 7 during critical times at work.
We were together for 24 years, so I spent more time in our marriage working outside the home than keeping the home fires burning. My point of view is that there was great economic value in what I and others did as a SAHM, both for our working spouses in particular and for the economy as a whole. I don't think it's unfair for I and others to expect a spousal benefit from Social Security, especially since we sacrificed years of career growth and Social Security contributions in order to perform that SAHM role for our working spouses.
ETA: The spousal benefit is even more critical for me to count on now that I'm in a much more precarious position financially emerging from a midlife divorce, without any of the security that comes from being part of a couple in retirement (insurance, IRAs, two benefits, etc.)
The spousal benefit is one of the best parts of Social Security. It is pro-family and anti-poverty. Those who had a wife earn more social security than the spousal benefit, or those who are single, will see no need for it. But, why not cut their benefit instead? Start cutting benefits for one group, and the cutting never will stop, Social Security can die of a thousand cuts.
I cared for a very handicapped husband for 19 years while raising 2 children. I could not work. Things changed after that and I got to work for about 9 years, remarried and collected a small paycheck for about 15 years. I never had a big paycheck. 1st. husband, being disabled for all but about 3 years of his adult life didn't have much of a record to collect on. 2nd husband has more of a record. I'm sure I'm not the only person in this type of situation. What do you think the SS laws regarding me should be? I am collecting on my own small record now. Someday if I live longer I will get survivor benefits. My own benefit is just over what spousal would be. I'm grateful to be getting what I am.
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.
