SS Should Return To Original Incarnation (50+, 2014, state, relative)
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.
I agree with the general premise of the article. There are too many people tapping into the system.
I say we end spousal and minor children's benefits.
They would have to phase it out. It is insurance that people have paid into for decades. It guarantees you will have something when you retire or that your survivors will have something if you pass away. But I totally disagree with that idea and cannot share what I think of it in a public forum.
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 ?
The uptick after 2007 ... involuntary "retirements."
I agree with the general premise of the article. There are too many people tapping into the system.
I say we end spousal and minor children's benefits.
End spousal benefits? What will happen to the homemaker who is discarded by her decades-long spouse for a younger model? Just let her sink into impoverished old age? That fate is just what Social Security was designed to prevent (not the divorce part, but the sinking into an impoverished old age part).
Last edited by josie13; 09-21-2016 at 10:18 AM..
Reason: clarification
I say we end spousal and minor children's benefits.
Wow - that's harsh. I know of two young widows - one who was pregnant with her fourth child when husband was killed in auto accident. Other kids were 2, 4, 5. She grew up in the 50's - had her kids in the mid-60's. Back in that day, women of her class didn't have careers - they married and had kids. Any work she was qualified to do paid nothing. SS benefits for her and the kids allowed her to keep her house, keep her kids in school - all went to college; enabled her to marry again (what man wants a woman w/4 kids?) a man who was a decent breadwinner and a decent father to those kids. Kids grew up to be school teachers (2), a CPA, one a biochemist.
Knew another woman w/2 kids - 10 & 12 - whose husband died after they had returned from a Friday night dinner out. He worked construction, she was a word processor. No way she could have kept the house w/o the survivor's benefits. She remarried two years later and that husband died a year later. Her kids went on to community college. She died at age 60 when both were adults - having worked her entire life. No one, of course, received any of her SS credits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13
End spousal benefits? What will happen to the homemaker who is discarded by her decades-long spouse for a younger model? Just let her sink into impoverished old age? That fate is just what Social Security was designed to prevent (not the divorce part, but the sinking into an impoverished old age part).
Yep - back the day women actually believed they'd be married for life. I never thought that way and always made sure I could stand on my own two feet - no matter what. But that mindset was unusual for the times.
End spousal benefits? What will happen to the homemaker who is discarded by her decades-long spouse for a younger model? Just let her sink into impoverished old age? That fate is just what Social Security was designed to prevent (not the divorce part, but the sinking into an impoverished old age part).
What would an older single never married woman get?
As for dependent children, people know how old they are. Be smart about family planning. Plan to not have minor children by the time you're SS age or pay for them yourself. The money paid via taxes from your paycheck didn't include extra for your late in life child or your wife who didn't want to work.
staying at home playing homemaker or stay at home mom is a personal choice . that is a decision they needed to think through and if they choose to do it it is their responsibility to make sure their bases are covered .
if you wanted your wife covered , just like a joint annuity you should pay in to the system for that extra coverage .
everyone posting gives their "ideas" while making sure none of their suggestions affect them.
My suggestion affects me. I will be that older single never married woman. I've worked all of my life and paid into the system. I'll get what I'm due. I didn't have a husband to use an excuse for not working.
If a woman doesn't want to work, then her husband should pay for her retirement.
Disability SS fraud is a huge problem that most don't want to address.
When a big factory closes down, the media say that......." those in early 60's might take early SS and those late 50's might turn to Disability SS "
Why does the media make it sound like both of those are options ?
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.
in a public forum.
