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.
Now I am confused Who do I send the die quickly card to?
Okay just tongue in cheek there but it is confusing that there are so many options for something that is supposed to be simple. Also do I have to marry someone based on what they will be able to provide me in SS benefits down the road? Whatever happened to marrying someone because you want to be with them forever? That they complete you and you complete them? Yeah sure you fight and argue but you find a way to compromise and work it out. I know it is off topic but I just don't understand.
Now I am confused Who do I send the die quickly card to?
Okay just tongue in cheek there but it is confusing that there are so many options for something that is supposed to be simple. Also do I have to marry someone based on what they will be able to provide me in SS benefits down the road? Whatever happened to marrying someone because you want to be with them forever? That they complete you and you complete them? Yeah sure you fight and argue but you find a way to compromise and work it out. I know it is off topic but I just don't understand.
Affluent millennials are marrying others of similar wealth and resources and asking for balance statements early in any dating process. The days of the exec marrying the secretary and the doctor the nurse are fading and that is a major source of the wealth gap as social mobility via marriage is not as frequent.
Now I am confused Who do I send the die quickly card to?
Okay just tongue in cheek there but it is confusing that there are so many options for something that is supposed to be simple. Also do I have to marry someone based on what they will be able to provide me in SS benefits down the road? Whatever happened to marrying someone because you want to be with them forever? That they complete you and you complete them? Yeah sure you fight and argue but you find a way to compromise and work it out. I know it is off topic but I just don't understand.
I brought it up because the baby boomers are the kings and queens of multiple marriages. Believe me, they are far and away the most complicated generation and their forays into this partner or that were a big departure from the generation of their parents.
I brought it up because the baby boomers are the kings and queens of multiple marriages. Believe me, they are far and away the most complicated generation and their forays into this partner or that were a big departure from the generation of their parents.
That's a great point as the role and nature of marriage has changed it is reasonable that programs will have to evolve to reflect the new realities and that would mean capping benefits for non traditional relationships not previously part of the formula.
I brought it up because the baby boomers are the kings and queens of multiple marriages. Believe me, they are far and away the most complicated generation and their forays into this partner or that were a big departure from the generation of their parents.
In earlier times, there were also multiple marriages - mostly between widows and widowers. Don't know how many compared to the baby boomer divorce rate.
I know this may upset some people but I never understood the idea of the Spouse getting 50% of her husband amount of SS when she may have never worked or paid in. Seems unfair to women that paid in all their career and don't get any extra benefit unless their SS is less then 1/2 of their Husband's SS amount. Seems like SS welfare to me.
I know this may upset some people but I never understood the idea of the Spouse getting 50% of her husband amount of SS when she may have never worked or paid in.
Back when single-earner families were the norm, it was critical that Social Security rationalize a means to preclude the vast majority of women from becoming destitute and desperate once the inevitable occurred, i.e., they outlived their spouse.
Fast forward to today and the value of the work non-working spouses does hasn't changed, so there isn't a strong rationale for reconstituting the system in such a way that that value is no longer factored into what the working spouse could be expected to put into the system.
Back when single-earner families were the norm, it was critical that Social Security rationalize a means to preclude the vast majority of women from becoming destitute and desperate once the inevitable occurred, i.e., they outlived their spouse.
Fast forward to today and the value of the work non-working spouses does hasn't changed, so there isn't a strong rationale for reconstituting the system in such a way that that value is no longer factored into what the working spouse could be expected to put into the system.
I can understand the point of the non-working spouse getting the survivor benefit and that benefit being the full amount of their spouse's social security. That precludes her from becoming destitute once a widow. But that still does not explain the need for the spouse receiving 50% of their husband's benefit while he is alive. Basically I disagree with your second paragraph. It is an outdated concept and there is a strong rationale, at least in my mind, for changing it.
I know this may upset some people but I never understood the idea of the Spouse getting 50% of her husband amount of SS when she may have never worked or paid in. Seems unfair to women that paid in all their career and don't get any extra benefit unless their SS is less then 1/2 of their Husband's SS amount. Seems like SS welfare to me.
Well, I had a number of women over the years say the same thing to me across the desk. Forgetting about the now short lived and underused spousal strategy and file and suspend (both which totally strayed from standard SSA policy for decades) I would tell those women the following:
You can collect your own regardless of your husband's intentions or his age. The woman who never worked must wait for hubby to collect before she can get a dime.
They also are limited to 50% of his full amount, whereas the woman who worked could equal or exceed that of her husband.
That 50% (and then reduced for age at a greater reduction factor than the woman worker), really doesn't leave someone with very much.
It barely pays a major bill like rent, mortgage, etc.
I can understand the point of the non-working spouse getting the survivor benefit and that benefit being the full amount of their spouse's social security. That precludes her from becoming destitute once a widow. But that still does not explain the need for the spouse receiving 50% of their husband's benefit while he is alive. Basically I disagree with your second paragraph. It is an outdated concept and there is a strong rationale, at least in my mind, for changing it.
As one has stated repeatedly Social Security much like our federal tax code is designed to promote and subsidize an "Ozzie and Harriet" marriage ideal. Women like Phyliss Schlafly and those who support them still firmly believe that a woman's place is married and in the home with children; that is a full time SAHM.
To encourage this that woman and others like her support tax and other social policies that *reward* women for not working and remaining at home as wives and mothers. From there you go to giving married women SS benefits via marriage even though the non-working spouse technically did not "earn" anything. They are also against changes in tax policy such as ending joint filing (the USA is one of the few major countries that still follows this), on the grounds it would "penalize" married women.
Sadly for Ms. Schlafly and others their worse nightmare came true; the courts made gay marriage legal on federal and state level across the USA. So now what has been the standard for the history of USA (non-working spouse automatically if not usually female) no longer applies. The same laws about equality that gave gays that victory is surely over the coming decades going to upend all sorts of legal/financial matters regarding family/marriage. As one said before the gay media seems hardly bothered by the ending of F&S nor that Obama signed it into law. Indeed the man is on the cover of a major gay magazine as one of their heroes. That tells you where some priorities matter on the ground.
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.
Who do I send the die quickly card to?
