New Social Security Regs (accident, child, city, contribution)
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.
Social Security could be defined as:
The Middle Class Subsidize the Working Poor so That the Wealthy Don't Have to
The subsidy is created by "bend points"
However, if we have the middle class get the same return the working poor do, we now have killed Social Security.
I vote for increasing the tax burden on the wealthy in the name of fairness, rather than eliminating or reducing the spousal benefit. In reality, those who have paid to raise children, have done far more to maintain society and social security, than singles or married with no children.
i agree , the day of the stay at home mom went out with my mothers generation .
you could argue that women do not get the same pay as men but then again a single woman still only gets a check based on her own
Flip that switch to today - my spouse is 2.5 years younger than I am - and has either been underemployed or unemployed since well before the recession. He is a SAHD to our 2 year old golden retriever and takes care of ALL of the house.
I am the primary breadwinner.
You will find that many men are stay at homes since the recession hit them much harder than women.
in either case there should be no spousal benefit for the stay at home spouse without both being covered by the working spouse paying in double in to the system to cover the non working spouse . .
singles do not have that ability and in fairness neither should married couples .
so what , what about singles in a similar situation ? why should anyone get a benefit either with no work record or a benefit higher then they paid in for based on a spousal benefit when a single person would not .
because someone is married and can't find a job is no better in that regard then a single who can't find a job .
the system is unfair in that respect as things stand today . it should not be giving more to a married couple then they would get individually . 1/2 of all couples with kids are unmarried .
don't get me wrong , my wife gets a 4200 dollar spousal adder to her early benefit as soon as i file and i like that . but i think it is a poorly designed unfair system that perks married couples over singles .
i think if the system wasn't as short of money as it is it would be nice to promote marriage . but the system does not have that luxury
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-15-2015 at 09:23 AM..
Probably the spousal benefit should be increased.
One can go down this path (a mistaken path):
Each individual is forced to pay into their own individual retirement account. There is no adder from an employer. The money is invested by one of several selected private companies. When someone reaches retirement age, an annuity from an insurance company is purchased from the savings and interest. There is no spousal benefit. No subsidy to the poor. Women get a lower benefit, because from an actuarial standpoint, they live longer. Black men get a larger benefit, as they live less long. This is the Mathjak fairness ideal? Vote Republican, you may just get what you wish for.
Social Security is about a 75% pay as you go system. Why are my children paying social security taxes to support those who have no children?
The system does have the "luxury" of promoting families and therefore society's future. End the salary cap.
Okay so the argument is that spousal benefits have merit - reason and justification - but that supporting that supplement damages the ability to assure the viability of base benefits. Do I have that right?
Probably the spousal benefit should be increased.
One can go down this path (a mistaken path):
Each individual is forced to pay into their own individual retirement account. There is no adder from an employer. The money is invested by one of several selected private companies. When someone reaches retirement age, an annuity from an insurance company is purchased from the savings and interest. There is no spousal benefit. No subsidy to the poor. Women get a lower benefit, because from an actuarial standpoint, they live longer. Black men get a larger benefit, as they live less long. This is the Mathjak fairness ideal? Vote Republican, you may just get what you wish for.
Social Security is about a 75% pay as you go system. Why are my children paying social security taxes to support those who have no children?
The system does have the "luxury" of promoting families and therefore society's future. End the salary cap.
why do any of us pay for any insurance when the claims likely go to others ?
Okay so the argument is that spousal benefits have merit - reason and justification - but that supporting that supplement damages the ability to assure the viability of base benefits. Do I have that right?
There is still the ability to meet the base benefit, even keeping current tax rates constant. Around 2033, benefits fall to around 75% of current benefits, IF no changes are made. Eliminating the cap solves the problem. So it is a choice.
No spousal benefit also means no spousal survivors benefit, if that is viewed as being unfair to singles. However all those widows would then need other welfare, from the general fund.
Probably the spousal benefit should be increased.
One can go down this path (a mistaken path):
Each individual is forced to pay into their own individual retirement account. There is no adder from an employer. The money is invested by one of several selected private companies. When someone reaches retirement age, an annuity from an insurance company is purchased from the savings and interest. There is no spousal benefit. No subsidy to the poor. Women get a lower benefit, because from an actuarial standpoint, they live longer. Black men get a larger benefit, as they live less long. This is the Mathjak fairness ideal? Vote Republican, you may just get what you wish for.
Social Security is about a 75% pay as you go system. Why are my children paying social security taxes to support those who have no children?
The system does have the "luxury" of promoting families and therefore society's future. End the salary cap.
like any pension the amount is based on certain crtieria . how long you live to collect that benefit is variable as most things in life are .
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.
