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.
There is still the ability to meet the base benefit, even keeping current tax rates constant. Around 2033, benefits fall to around 75% of current benefits, IF no changes are made. Eliminating the cap solves the problem. So it is a choice.
"Choice" doesn't really capture the reality. It makes it seem like there is someone sitting at a desk with two reports in front of him/her, and the power to turn one into law and send the other to the shredder. The reality, of course, that it is a political process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graywhiskers
No spousal benefit also means no spousal survivors benefit
Why? Why can't there be a middle road, where the spousal supplement is gone but survivors benefits remain?
Are they actually eliminating the spousal benefit when husband is deceased? I was under the impression that they were eliminating the provision that a spouse can draw spousal while leaving his/hers to grow (file and suspend as it is known). Did they eliminate the entire spousal benefit to allow the spouse to draw up to the higher FRA or age 70 SS benefit of the spouse. If taken at FRA that would be the max. If taken at age 70 that would be the max.
Deeming will not apply to a widow or widower, who will still be able to claim a survivor benefit while deferring individual retirement benefits and letting them rise in value. This assumes the survivor has not already filed for individual retirement benefits. It also assumes that benefit would be larger than the survivor benefit—otherwise, there would be no reason to defer and later switch.
No spousal benefit also means no spousal survivors benefit, if that is viewed as being unfair to singles. However all those widows would then need other welfare, from the general fund.
Spousal and survivor benefits are already apples and oranges in that different rules and eligibility apply.
If spousal was eliminated but survivor was not, then SS would just be on the hook to pay one benefit earned by the wage-earner, and would not pay 1.5 benefits as it does now. (I'm ignoring children's benefits for simplicity and because imo it's a different issue, one that relatively affects few people).
Spousal and survivor benefits are already apples and oranges in that different rules and eligibility apply.
If spousal was eliminated but survivor was not, then SS would just be on the hook to pay one benefit earned by the wage-earner, and would not pay 1.5 benefits as it does now. (I'm ignoring children's benefits for simplicity and because imo it's a different issue, one that relatively affects few people).
But the logic is the same. It is a benefit singles don't get.
there are loads of things out there singles do not get in many aspects of life . many are things that by all rights they shouldn't get just because they are married . but you have to see what you can cut and where without impoverishing too many folks .
But the logic is the same. It is a benefit singles don't get.
Singles don't have spouses dependent upon their SS benefit. But if they have dependent children or parents, those can collect survivor benefits.
Family survivors of a deceased person can receive 150% or more of the worker's benefit, regardless if the deceased was single or married.
why do any of us pay for any insurance when the claims likely go to others ?
We pay for insurance just in case we end up as the ones in need.
I've paid homeowner's insurance for 30-odd years, but only ever made one minor claim for a blown-down fence in that entire time. Others likely have made claims for massive amounts, total replacements for burned-down or moldy houses. I'm grateful those claims were paid out to others in need, not to me.
The same goes for auto insurance. You pay your premiums for decades upon decades and consider yourself lucky that you've never had a single accident or any real damage. I'm grateful the big claims were paid out to others, not to me. I consider myself lucky that my premiums never came back to me.
Social Security is insurance in case we ever end up in need in our old age. Just like with the other forms of insurance, I'd be grateful to not be the one who ends up in need of a claim. Let the premiums I've paid go to the unfortunate who are struggling with great financial need.
But the logic is the same. It is a benefit singles don't get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13
Social Security is insurance in case we ever end up in need in our old age. Just like with the other forms of insurance, I'd be grateful to not be the one who ends up in need of a claim. Let the premiums I've paid go to the unfortunate who are struggling with great financial need. That's what insurance is for.
Precisely. We discussed much earlier in the thread how Social Security is intended as a safety net, as insurance against destitution, not an investment or rewards plan. So grounding the logic in its role as insurance, how well it protects against destitution is far more important that the dollar-for-dollar parity between contributions and distributions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
except social security is more like a whole life insurance policy
Evidently not, but I respect that you wish it was.
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.
