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.
It is fraud. It is an insurance benefit contingent on you seriously looking for full time work. Going through the motions to extend the period in which you collect is fraud.
IMHO, applying for the required number of jobs and documenting the applications meets the requirements of UE. There is nothing in the law that requires your heart has to be in it. Now, if they GOT the job and turned it down because their hearts were not in it, and lied about it, that would be a condition for UE insurance termination and investigation. That hasn't happened, and may very well not happen.
Look at it from the other POV: what we have is a couple of sad old ladies who know that they will never again have their current standard of living, and they are doing their best to maintain face in an atmosphere of petty gossips. Such as the OP. Or yourself for that matter. This circumstance is sort of like when the HS Homecoming Queen turned you down cold for the senior prom, and you announced loudly to your friends in a crowded auditorium "She's really too dumb to spend the whole evening with anyway".
Frankly, we do NOT know the manner of their search. And thankfully for all of us, we cannot yet be hauled off to court or droned for THINKING something. If we could, the majority of us would be in the slammer for wanting to kill our SOs, kids or bosses at one time or other.
IMHO, you might oughta MYOB, stop maligning people on the basis of hearsay, and have some compassion. Sounds like you don't have enough meaningful stress in your own life to attend to, so you get your fix by making things up about others.
IMHO, you might oughta MYOB, stop maligning people on the basis of hearsay, and have some compassion. Sounds like you don't have enough meaningful stress in your own life to attend to, so you get your fix by making things up about others.
This is clearly intended for the OP and not me as I didn't bring up the question to a public forum. The OP did.
They say that most people are collecting social security now at the early retirement age of 62. You get 70% of the benefit you would be given if you waited to the traditional retirement age (65-67 based on your year of birth)
Anyway, a couple of ladies where I work were laid off at age 61 and are now collecting unemployment benefits. Both will be turning 62 in Spring of 2013.
The unemployment office has got them sending in a form every few weeks telling them that they are available for work and actively searching for work. But in reality both of them told me their heart is not in the whole full time work thing and are just going through the motions and expect to collect unemployment benefits until it runs out then go immediately on social security. They want to eventually work 10-15 hours a week in a part time gig but have enough money to survive until death with paid off homes and savings, 401K's etc.
Should these women even morally collect jobless benefits if they are not really trying that hard to find a job and will go on social security next year anyway? Will anyone hire you if you are sixty one years old for a full time job at your previous wage anyway?
Unemployment is probably all they can have until they reach 62. And if they apply for just enough jobs to merit their checks then they are within the requirements, whether their hearts are in it or not.
IMHO, you might oughta MYOB, stop maligning people on the basis of hearsay, and have some compassion. Sounds like you don't have enough meaningful stress in your own life to attend to, so you get your fix by making things up about others.
This is clearly intended for the OP and not me as I didn't bring up the question to a public forum. The OP did.
Very brave to pretend she's not talking about you.
Very brave to pretend she's not talking about you.
There's no dodging. It's funny how people pull out the O.J. Paradox when it's convenient. Clearly since the glove didn't fit, he didn't murder his ex-wife.
She could have been talking to me but it doesn't apply. I'm not the one who took a private matter and brought it to a public forum. I just responded to an inquiry.
The good thing is that these people can retire soon and not worry about the job market. All their years of hard work paid off and now they get the benefit of SS.
I agree with Colorado xxxxx - no company will hire these older workers with exception of places like Target, Walmart etc. I worked 40 years as an administrative assistant with a solid work history and recognition. The first year ( 2008) after I was laid off I applied to many, many jobs and had good interviews, but still did not land a job. Finally went to work as a part time temp for a company I worked for years ago that will hopefully carry me through the holidays. God willing, I'll retire at 65 in mid 2013. Unemployment sucks and people that have jobs and were not affected in this downturn are clueless.
Those that didn't save for retirement like they should have would do well to work a little longer. Perhaps age 70 if able.
For a husband and wife team SS for the lower earning spouse is calculated at either the spouses entitlement or 50% of the higher earning spouses benefit whatever is more.
If my benefit is $2,131 at my full retirement age of 66 my wife is entitled to her benefit or 50% of my entitlement whichever is more. If she never worked a day in her life at her full retirement age of 66 she would receive 50% of my benefit or $1,065. Together our combined benefit would be $3,196/mo bringing down our average check of $1,598. Seeing as how this money is not subject to employment, state or federal income taxes (picture it as $3,196/mo take home pay) we should be able to scrape by without having to resort to cat food. In most parts of the country a couple without children should be able to live well enough on $3,196/mo take home pay.
Both taking it early, taking it when we are 62, would greatly reduce the benefit for both of us. If a full retirement benefit was $2,131 at age 66 I would be entitled to $1,598 at age 62 and my wife would be entitled to 50% of that making our monthly benefit $2,397 for an average of just $1,198 each check.
Retiring those four years early is gonna cost this couple $799/mo for the rest of their lives. $799/mo take home is a lot of money to dismiss... for many couples it could mean the difference between barely making it and living pretty well. That extra four years putting off collecting is equivalent to having saved enough money to be able to take out $799/month from savings for the rest of your lives and never running out.
That is a lot of difference. How much would you have to save to be able to pull $799/month for maybe 20 years? Also consider that $799 is subject to COLA raises while money in the bank is not. What will a dollar be worth in 12 years?
And for some maybe working just one or two years longer might be the way to make up for past sins or a badly performing IRA account. The benefit goes up by 8%/year beyond age 66 to age 70. For a benefit of $2,131 just one more year would increase it by $170. That is a lot... in many areas of the country it is enough to pay for basic cable television, internet and land line phone for the rest of your lives and for some it could mean paying all the utilities depending on where you live. Two extra years would be $341 extra which, depending on where you live of course, might pay for all utilities plus basic cable, internet and land line phone.
So you know the lesser earning spouses 50% will never go higher than 50% of the higher working spouses full retirement (age 66 or whatever) age.
The best plan to have is what is called the 62/70 plan which is what my wife and I are on.
The 62/70 plan calls for the lower earning spouse to collect their social security at age 62 while the higher earning spouse waits to age 70. My wife starting receiving $476/month when she turned 62 which was based only on her earnings. She will collect this until she turns age 66 at which time she will file for 50% of my benefit which is well more than double what she receives now. When she turns 66 I will file for benefits (I will be > 66) so she can collect hers upon which time I will immediately suspend my benefits.
I am 65 now and my goal is to work until age 70 if I can. I should be able to which would boost my benefit to $2,813 while my wife would collect $1,065 giving us a combined monthly SS income of $3,838.
Another reason for working to age 70 (if you are able and I understand not everyone will be able to) is if I were to die first my wife would lose her benefit of $1,065 but pick up my full benefit of $2,813. Consider if I retired at age 62 she would lose her benefit and collect mine of $1.598. There is a lot of living difference between $1,598 and $2,813.
In my opinion the only time anyone should ever collect early is if they have a terminal disease or enough saved money where they will never need social security anyway.
It's not fraud until they turn down full time work. As long as they send in the, required, resume's they are not committing fraud. IMO, it's also not unethical because they did not ask to become unemployed and reality is there are few companies out there who are going to want to hire them at their ages. Use of unemployment as a bridge until they are old enough to retire is just as legitmate as use of unemployment until you find another job. If they were planning on retiring at 62 and no one wants to hire them, what are they doing wrong? Seriously, I wouldn't look hard either. I'd send in the required resume's and be done with it.
You need to keep in mind that it is their ex employer who pays this bill. You know, the one who made them unemployed in the first place.
Collecting unemployment while not seriously looking for full time work with the intent of collecting unemployment until it runs out is fraud.
I think I told this little story here before, but...
Once when I was on unemployment, I had to also fill out the little weekly job search form (which ultimately was never reviewed or collected). Nevertheless, you were not supposed to be able to collect benefits unless you applied to a minimum of jobs per week.
One week, I didn't apply to any jobs. I actually did look, but didn't apply. So, I didn't file benefits for that week.
They actually stopped my payments completely.
When I called the unemployment office, they reinstated my benefits and said they stopped them because any time someone doesn't claim ONE week, they count it as a red flag, either you leaving the country or somethings.
When I told the person I didn't claim because I didn't apply to any jobs that week, she BURST OUT IN LAUGHTER at my honesty/stupidity!
If you really think people are applying to jobs every week who are claiming benefits, well then I have a bridge I want to sell you...
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.
