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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2016, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,473 posts, read 13,960,521 times
Reputation: 6436

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Then I was right in my post. Not sure what your beef is.

I get lots of those over-sized postcards, and even some first-class mail advertisements. First they attempt to scare you with 'MAJOR CHANGES in SS' and how THEY can help you. Sometimes you can even get a free lunch if you sit through their presentation! LOL

They are just solicitations. As I said, and you concurred, if there were major changes to SS everyone would know about them.
IMO this and the other post are from the voice of reason. You need to know how to recognize an AD for commercial services.

The flyers you are getting are from companies, who think you have limited mental capacity and excess money. They hope to use both to enrich themselves. Look around on the flyer, it may say this is an advertisement or something in the small print. Or maybe not. Some of these people are criminals.

My advice is to recycle those postcards. You can also report the people who sent you the ads to the FTC so they won't get any more unsuspecting consumers. If they are making it look like they are the government, then I'm pretty sure that is a serious crime. https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureau...sing-practices
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2016, 07:11 AM
 
71,700 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
the best come on's are the dinners .

we went to a few david lerner ones and boy are they good at pushing product . some things sounded so good i would have bought it myself if i didn't know the actual deal behind the sales pitch .

in fact i reviewed one of the products they were pushing a few times in threads here with a real good look under the hood at the guarantees and bonus dollars they give you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 09:04 AM
 
7,340 posts, read 16,653,411 times
Reputation: 4568
Actually, two things did happen, come to think about it.

While at the SS Office, and I was with her, she checked on her spousal support from her "ex", who is now deceased, and found out she could have (note the words "could have") received around $1,100 of his SS. Then, the clerk asked her when we got married. Well, turns out that she married me too soon! If she would have stayed a widow for a few more years, she would have got his benefits. She told me she never gave it a thought about applying for spousal benefits until now and, of course, the SS never informed her that she couldn't remarry for so many years in order to collect the benefits. She wasn't happy, but had to accept it.

The other thing: She was going to do the "file, suspend, reopen" her SS, at age 67, but we both decided that she should go ahead and get her FRA now rather than do that. So, now she has a descent paying job, plus getting her FRA each month as well. She is very glad that I talked her out of the "file, suspend, reopen".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,221,259 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveBoating View Post
Actually, two things did happen, come to think about it.

While at the SS Office, and I was with her, she checked on her spousal support from her "ex", who is now deceased, and found out she could have (note the words "could have") received around $1,100 of his SS. Then, the clerk asked her when we got married. Well, turns out that she married me too soon! If she would have stayed a widow for a few more years, she would have got his benefits. She told me she never gave it a thought about applying for spousal benefits until now and, of course, the SS never informed her that she couldn't remarry for so many years in order to collect the benefits. She wasn't happy, but had to accept it.

The other thing: She was going to do the "file, suspend, reopen" her SS, at age 67, but we both decided that she should go ahead and get her FRA now rather than do that. So, now she has a descent paying job, plus getting her FRA each month as well. She is very glad that I talked her out of the "file, suspend, reopen".
If she married you after she reached 60 years of age, she would be eligible for the survivor benefits. Since she is now over the age of 60, the two of you could divorce and remarry, thus enabling her to receive the survivor benefits on her ex-husband's record. I would never recommend this because of my personal beliefs regarding marriage, but that's just me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,221,259 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
<snip> divorced women get hit pretty hard now . they can no longer take spousal and let their's grow . <snip>
If the divorced woman was born before January 2, 1954, she can still take her spousal benefit and let hers grow.

It is those born on or after January 2, 1954 that lose that option. IMO, what's even worse is that the divorced spouse will have no say in whether she will receive benefits under her ex's record if she would receive more under his record.

If she would receive even one lousy dollar more under her ex's record, she will receive it (because of deeming). That's not only stupid, it will be confusing and offensive to many independent, divorced women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 02:33 PM
 
71,700 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
i agree about the divorced but the reality was it did nothing to the divorced woman that isn't just how the single woman is all the time .

it took away the reward for being married good or bad .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 02:35 PM
 
71,700 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
If the divorced woman was born before January 2, 1954, she can still take her spousal benefit and let hers grow.

It is those born on or after January 2, 1954 that lose that option. IMO, what's even worse is that the divorced spouse will have no say in whether she will receive benefits under her ex's record if she would receive more under his record.

If she would receive even one lousy dollar more under her ex's record, she will receive it (because of deeming). That's not only stupid, it will be confusing and offensive to many independent, divorced women.
it shows restricted application is still ok if 62 in 2015 or older but file and suspend is dead .

"If you were born before January 2, 1954 and have already reached full retirement age, you can choose to receive only the divorced spouse’s benefit and delay receiving your retirement benefit until a later date. If your birthday is January 2, 1954 or later, the option to take only one benefit at full retirement age no longer exists. If you file for one benefit, you will be effectively filing for all retirement or spousal benefits :
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 04:13 PM
 
594 posts, read 859,085 times
Reputation: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
you can pick up another 8% a year so it may pay but there are so many factors involved . nothing is ever a given 100% in each situation
You will lose two years of income say 2000x12x2=48,000 Your gain of 8% for 2 years would get you m/l 155 per month. To make up that 48,000 would take around 25 years. If your spouse is 20 years younger maybe it is worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 04:18 PM
 
71,700 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
that is why there is no answer that is 100% .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,221,259 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i agree about the divorced but the reality was it did nothing to the divorced woman that isn't just how the single woman is all the time .

it took away the reward for being married good or bad .
It's not all about money. Unlike a single woman, a divorced spouse may not want a constant reminder of the ex but apparently has no choice in the matter unless she refuses to apply for retirement benefits. All correspondence regarding both her SS benefits and Medicare will only have his SSN attached.

OTOH, if the ex has died...
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
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