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.
If SS is in such trouble financially, why don't they change
the rules and stop giving EX spouse the same benefit as higher wage earner ?
Or require longer marriage. With only 10 year requirement, someone could easily
have 3 or 4 exes.
If SS is in such trouble financially, why don't they change
the rules and stop giving EX spouse the same benefit as higher wage earner ?
Or require longer marriage. With only 10 year requirement, someone could easily
have 3 or 4 exes.
Forget the "exes." Don't get me started on these spousal schemes, er...strategies.
Before one beneficiary receiving an earned benefit incurs a reduction in that benefit, those receiving what they didn't earn should be chucked.
The system will have to be changed if it is to survive. I've read that reducing all benefits to 75% of what is promised would do it but my bet is they will take from those who have and give to those who don't (It's the democratic way). If you have a pension or retirement savings you won't get SS. They won't take it from spouses who have no retirement plan of their own or children. They'll take it from those who are lucky enough to have a pension or who have saved for retirement. I do think the spousal benefit should be based on the length of the marriage. If you're married to someone for only 10 of the 40 years used to calculate their benefit, you get 1/4th of the benefit.
I do wish they'd get on with it. I can't plan not knowing if I'll have anything from SS. They won't change benefits for current recipients. They'll change them for future retirees. They've already changed the full retirement age but that is not enough to save the system and they need to save it not for those who are prepared but for those who are not prepared. My guess is it will look more like welfare than a retirement benefit with those with the greatest need getting the most while those who don't get little or nothing.
What I find interesting is that we never seem to run out of money for welfare but here is a system people paid into their entire working lives and it is running out of money. Could we fix this by putting the welfare recipients to work?
Young people should be able to opt out and then the scheme should be ended. It cannot and should not be reformed.
Who thinks politicians and govt bureaucrats are good stewards of your money?
Up the retirement age to 85.75 years of age. Everyone is living longer, can't have that.......
Everyone is going to die, its a spike that everyone in the know knew that baby boomers were going to be a strain on SS, they will pass. Up the cap to $200,000.
Young people should be able to opt out and then the scheme should be ended. It cannot and should not be reformed.
Who thinks politicians and govt bureaucrats are good stewards of your money?
The problem with this are the very reasons the system was started in the first place. People weren't preparing for retirement.
If SS is in such trouble financially, why don't they change
the rules and stop giving EX spouse the same benefit as higher wage earner ?
Or require longer marriage. With only 10 year requirement, someone could easily
have 3 or 4 exes.
It's my understanding that an ex-spouse can choose between HALF of his/her ex-spouse's SS benefit, OR their own benefit, whichever is higher. For instance, if the husband receives $2,000/month in SS benefits, the ex-spouse is entitled to receive $1,000/month. If her own SS benefit is $1,100/month, she would chose her own benefit. No one cannot receive their own AND half of their ex-spouse (or spouse, for that matter).
Also, an ex-spouse can only receive benefits from ONE spouse, the last one. If an ex-spouse remarries, he/she can only collect benefits from the last one, so it doesn't matter how many times they married.
I suppose that was put into place because in the past, not many women worked. They stayed home and took care of the husband, kids, house, without a chance of contributing to SS. IMO, that shouldn't be changed, since many women earn much less than men.
It's my understanding that an ex-spouse can choose between HALF of his/her ex-spouse's SS benefit, OR their own benefit, whichever is higher. For instance, if the husband receives $2,000/month in SS benefits, the ex-spouse is entitled to receive $1,000/month. If her own SS benefit is $1,100/month, she would chose her own benefit. No one cannot receive their own AND half of their ex-spouse (or spouse, for that matter).
Also, an ex-spouse can only receive benefits from ONE spouse, the last one. If an ex-spouse remarries, he/she can only collect benefits from the last one, so it doesn't matter how many times they married.
I suppose that was put into place because in the past, not many women worked. They stayed home and took care of the husband, kids, house, without a chance of contributing to SS. IMO, that shouldn't be changed, since many women earn much less than men.
Yup. Divorce was taboo.
Now you have multiple marriages and old men with trophy wives and young children, all who can now qualify and receive money from one single person.
Up the retirement age to 85.75 years of age. Everyone is living longer, can't have that.......
Everyone is going to die, its a spike that everyone in the know knew that baby boomers were going to be a strain on SS, they will pass. Up the cap to $200,000.
Unfortunately, living longer doesn't equate with being healthy enough to work longer. I doubt most 85 year olds are fit for work or that companies would even want them working. I'm 56 and wondering if I'm going to make it to 67 let alone 85. Unfortunately, as a teacher who hasn't gotten a step increase in the 6 years I've been in my district, I also cannot save for retirement. I planned on using what were supposed to be automatic pay increases to save for retirement but they stopped giving them. My pay is frozen at entry level and there is no indication that this will change any time soon.
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.
