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.
(This came up on Suze Orman's show last night. That was her explanation.)
This is designed for stay-at-home partners who never worked outside the home or who put their own careers on hold to raise a family and then get dumped after years of marriage. Having one partner stay at home means the other one didn't have to pay for childcare, housework, cooking, etc. It's compensation for that. The same with splitting a pension. It's a marital asset.
That is what a divorce settlement is for. You get compensated then not 20, 30, or 40 years later. And you should also be compensated by your Ex not "the American People".
This is not the case for me but it shows just another break down in our system. If someone is divorced their Ex can receive 50% of their SS and pension while the 1st person gets 100% of their benefits. This is what a divorce settlement is for. Why should an ex spouse receive anything after the divorce is final?
So for a husband, his ex, and his new wife(?) they would receive 200% of his benefits. Is that right? That seems insane. Just another bill for the American people to pay for.
Benefits for a divorced spouse
Your divorced spouse can get benefits on your Social Security record if the marriage lasted at least 10 years. Your divorced spouse must be 62 or older and unmarried.
The amount of benefits he or she gets has no effect on the amount of benefits you or your current spouse can get.
Also, if you and your ex-spouse have been divorced for at least two years and you and your ex-spouse are at least 62, he or she can get benefits even if you are not retired.
I believe it depends on the number of years they were married, but yes you are right. I learned this a few years ago.
the intention of the law was to protect women. that was the intent.
instead--- a bounty was placed on husbands
wanted divorced or dead
must provide pelt to collect reward
on each husband
the intention of the law was to protect women. that was the intent.
instead--- a bounty was placed on husbands
wanted divorced or dead
must provide pelt to collect reward
on each husband
Funny but somewhat true... the old times aren't really as prevalent anymore... both spouses are expected to work now... You would think the laws would change to fit the times.... not yet apparently... but someday...
The law doesn't just 'protect' divorced wives, it also protects divorced husbands if the wife's income was higher than his. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean, all social security is a ponzi scam, you get back all you put in within interest within what, 7 years?? The rest is welfare, in my opinion.
The divorce person is entilteed to half of everyhting that is accumlated during the marriage in most stae at a minimum;That includes SS.
Yes "half" of everything. But in this case the ex husband collects 100% and his ex wife gets "another" 50%. That is more than half and the public pays for the extra 50% not the ex husband.
The ex gets 50% at full retirement. But remember, they are choosing between their own vs. their ex-spouse so they aren't getting as big a percentage as you think.
younglisa... I think most folks are misunderstanding how the system works. The "ex" doesn't "get half", but the amount of SS an ex who never remarried, but was married for over 10 years will receive is based on her income over her lifetime, or her ex husband's... whichever is greater. The "new spouse" also receives SS based on which income is higher... her's or her new hubby's (if they are married for at least 10 years, or are married when she begins to collect).
As folks have said, this was put into place to protect a spouse that spends years helping to build their spouse's career from having to spend their twilight years living below the poverty level because of someone's mid life crisis.
I believe in CA the ex gets 30% of the retirement if they were married for more then 10 years and the spouse wanting the pension does not remarry. The last few years there have been alot of couples that we know getting divorced. Most of the men work with my hubby and are not happy about the retirement. So hubby gets an earfull. They usually buy out the wife in the divorce settlement. I always tease my hubby that he better not ditch me, or I will go after that retirement. We are 32 years old and have been together for 17 years, so I really don't see divorce on the horizon, ever.
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.
