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.
the trend today is to take ss later not earlier , as life expectancy increases and markets and interest rates make it more difficult and challenging to beat delaying ss , the trend line has been going out longer . less people are now filing at 62 than the 1990's when more than 1/2 did ..
up until recently few really even understood spousal benefits and the power of delaying . as it became more popular and more and more learned about how to manipulate spousal benefits the door was closed on most of it . it wasn't much of an issue prior since most folks made decisions based on what if i die , instead of the more important question . what if i live ?
Great post and nicely timed. I like that the author followed up with the list of some of the amendments to SS.
For the longest time I was of a mind to have me off the SS roles but I was not allowed to by my employer so..... here I am. A few years away from wife collecting and me debating on waiting 11 years.
I would say though some definite changes should be done to SS. I like the idea of raising the wages subject to SS most but of course that is said not to be able to work. I think it might help. I also am of a mind to extend work visas to the undocumented aliens that are working. At the same time hit the employer for a penalty for not reporting their wages. My last idea is to fine any employer who moved work over to another country putting people out of work here.
What was the logic behind lowering the length of marriage before divorce to ten years from twenty?
If marriage is supposed to be until "death do us part" ten years does not seem like an awfully long time to be "fully vested" as it were. It explains why more than a few have several ex-spouses scattered about and a current all getting benefits off one persons' record.
What was the logic behind lowering the length of marriage before divorce to ten years from twenty?
If marriage is supposed to be until "death do us part" ten years does not seem like an awfully long time to be "fully vested" as it were. It explains why more than a few have several ex-spouses scattered about and a current all getting benefits off one persons' record.
That could be one of the better changes to make along with raising the maximum income to be taxed for the fund. It could have a side effect of keeping families together longer but..... who knows.
What was the logic behind lowering the length of marriage before divorce to ten years from twenty?
If marriage is supposed to be until "death do us part" ten years does not seem like an awfully long time to be "fully vested" as it were. It explains why more than a few have several ex-spouses scattered about and a current all getting benefits off one persons' record.
until death do us part isn't a vow as much as a goal- lol
That could be one of the better changes to make along with raising the maximum income to be taxed for the fund. It could have a side effect of keeping families together longer but..... who knows.
there are not that many families anymore . more and more just have kids out of wedlock .
there are not that many families anymore . more and more just have kids out of wedlock .
Parent + child = family.
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.
