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 02-21-2008, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,682 posts, read 49,455,573 times
Reputation: 19134

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
If you were married to your ex-spouse for ten years before your divorce became final, you are entitled to Social Security benefits based on his/her earnings by federal law.
Isn't it that the non-working spouse would be 'entitled' to 50% of the SS benefits as paid into for during that 10+ year period of time?

Get married and work for ten years [40 quarters] before your first wife leaves you, and she can file a claim against that ten year period. Continue working and remarry, then ten years later the second wife can leave you and file a 50% claim against that ten year period too.



My employer's pension used to be that: a 10+ year spouse got half of your entire career's pension, leaving you only half of your pension.

If you had a second spouse for the second 10+ years of your career, that second spouse could get half of your remaining pension, leaving you with a quarter of your pension.

If you had a third spouse for the third 10+ years of your career, that third spouse could get half of your remaining pension, leaving you with an eighth of your pension.



In around 2000 they changed how our pensions work too.

Once you are on pension; when you die, your spouse gets nothing unless you paid into SBP [Survivor Benefit Package]. If I pay 5% of my pension into SBP, then when I die my wife can get 5% of my pension for the rest of her life. If I pay 10% of my pension into SBP, then when I die my wife can get 10% of my pension for the rest of her life. I could pay any percentage of my pension into SBP, and then when I died my wife could get that exact percentage of my pension for the rest of her life. If I did not want any of my pension and decided to pay all of it into SBP; then when I die she could get my entire pension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2008, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Looking East and hoping!
28,227 posts, read 19,620,586 times
Reputation: 2000000873
My s-i-l's first husband died in 1981-she gets his benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2008, 07:29 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,943,432 times
Reputation: 18050
The social security problem has been known long before Bush was even a candidate. ex-senator Breaux(D) chaired a committee for years working on this problem .Basically it was either raise SS payroll Taxes or reduce benefits. If I remember right this was the problem. The federal government takes in 18% of GDP from all sources. At the time (several years ago) three programs social security;medicare and medicaid cost 6% of the 18%. By 2025 or there abouts the congression budget office estimates that these three programs will take 16% of the 18%;leaving 2% for all other programs. Basically it came down to either rasing pay roll txaes or reducing benefits.If you look at SS it is a trust fund but if it were any other trust fund it would be illegal because the Federal government can borrow form the fund at like 1.5% interest and only has to pay back what is currently going out to retirees.It was a good source of money when passed because most that payed in didn't reach 65 to collect and the amount coming in was there for way over that. But congress decided to add more collecotrs than just those that had payed in.There for it was no longer just a retirement supplement.Since Breaux did not run for reelection I've heard nothing other than Bushes plan. Medicare and medicaid are in qworse shape than SS. How they are talking about adding a new perogram;universal healthcare;and basically not worrying abou the other until it is in crisis ;I guess. Makes no sense to me ;other than spending evreything that our children will put in and screwing them. But I guess that is the price of getting america's vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 09:58 AM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 12,052,621 times
Reputation: 2141
The only one talking about universal health care was Edwards and he bowed out. None of the remaining candidates are talking about anything but universal (or not) insurance equaling the Fed. employee's plate of insurance options. But the insurance coverage isn't very good now either. Feds have to pay about 1/3 of the cost of the insurance plus all the copays and exclusions. Every year, the insurance costs about 10% more and covers less and less. That still won't solve the problem as many people at the lower ends of the economic spectrum will still find it much too expensive. If a universal insurance program were to pass, Medicare and Medicaid would probably go away and get subsumed into the "universal" insurance program.

Since the whole economy is now dependent on social security as a portion of retirement planning, I can't see it ever going away. The funding will have to change, but it has become a form of corporate welfare as corporation after corporation has reneged on the retirement benefits and routinely fires those who get near retirement age so the don't have to pay the benefits, it would be a colossal disaster if SS were to disappear. Politicians can't afford to let that happen. They'll print more money before they let SS die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 06:53 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,943,432 times
Reputation: 18050
But they will change the benefits or icrease the tax base on workewrs backs. The fact is they are ignoring it because they won't be there and want to get elected.Both plans currently proposed include supplements to pay for the poorer people. If it becomes part of the fed program look forward to higher premimums and less coverage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2008, 12:54 PM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 12,052,621 times
Reputation: 2141
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
But they will change the benefits or icrease the tax base on workewrs backs. The fact is they are ignoring it because they won't be there and want to get elected.Both plans currently proposed include supplements to pay for the poorer people. If it becomes part of the fed program look forward to higher premimums and less coverage.
Actually, the facts are that Medicare is a very successful program. Costs are much lower than with regular insurance. And that includes the costs from fraud within the system that really needs to be cleaned up. The reality is that the care in this country lags significantly at much greater cost than in any other industrialized country. Quit drinking the Kool-aid and look at the real statistics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,682 posts, read 49,455,573 times
Reputation: 19134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesaje View Post
... The reality is that the care in this country lags significantly at much greater cost than in any other industrialized country.
Which is why folks who are refused treatment in other industrialized nations, travel here and seek treatment.

I have been treated in British hospital and I have visited folks in Italian Ospitales.

I am no fan of Nationalized healthcare. Mooo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2008, 08:09 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,943,432 times
Reputation: 18050
[quote=Tesaje;2952492]Actually, the facts are that Medicare is a very successful program. Costs are much lower than with regular insurance. And that includes the costs from fraud within the system that really needs to be cleaned up. The reality is that the care in this country lags significantly at much greater cost than in any other industrialized country. Quit drinking the
Kool-aid and look at the real statistics.[/quot

You need to drop more than the kool-aid.The fact is that regular insurance subsidises social security as it does those that don't pay hospitals. Why do you think that so many carry supplement or private full coverage if medicare pays so good. The fact is that more and more physicans do not take medicare only patients.Medicare is the old 80/20 like so many old health care plans from the past and has limited prescription drug coverage.To get anything close to a good private plan you have to go to a HMO medicare plan and those really limit choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2008, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,811,113 times
Reputation: 6195
The outlook for Social Security isn't nearly as dire as frequently presented:

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll, down from 2.02 percent in last year's report.

This means you could increase the individual and matching corp contribution by about 1/2% each, increase the ceiling for paying into Social Security to about $110,000 and drop the cost of living increases by about 1/4% a year, and be fine for the next 75+ years.


THE Summary of the 2007 Annual Reports
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2008, 06:00 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,943,432 times
Reputation: 18050
I just read that and it is much diferent than stated It needs a 16% increase in payroll taxes or a 13% IMMEDIATE reduction in benefits.It fails the long range test by WIDE margins. That is just a nice way of saying it is in deep doo-doo like the congressional studies have shown.HI trust fund estimate to be exhausted by 2019.To safeguard the medicare program will need a IMMEDIATE 122% increase in the payroll tax or a IMMEDIATE 51% decrease in outlays. That is really serious and why the aoutomatically trigger warning was issued as required by law.
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
Similar Threads
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