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.
Uhhh...ya'll aren't too nice. Do you have nothing better to do than to prowl and compare posts for coincidences? I was only asking a simple damn question and I get flamed. Yeah, that's REAL classy. Talk about trying to pull the splinter out of my eye WHEN SOME OF YA'LL HAVE A LOG IN YOUR OWN!!!!
That was no where near a flame. A few people expressed surprise that such a benefit existed.
It isn't like you admitted that you purposely had a child with someone on the verge of retiring with the intent to get this benefit.
I think we could probably all admit that if we found ourselves in the same situation, we would have a CHOICE about accepting this benefit or not, and we would certainly accept it!
OP, I really AM flabbergasted that this is allowed. Your husband is presumably in his 60s (or older) but you presumably are at least 20 years younger (actually just found a post where you said you are mid-40s), since the two of you have a 3-year-old. You really can't understand why some of us are puzzled that TAXPAYERS are supporting your 3-year-old for you?
Please note, I didn't suggest that you were doing anything illegal or even unethical -- I was just puzzled that THIS is how SS works.
Rather than displaying your ignorance of the Social Security law, perhaps your time would be better spent studying said law than posting stuff like this. Also this couple might have adopted this child----as I did.
Honestly, I had no idea this was allowed, so I have learned something today.
But I am a bit flabbergasted that a retiree (in his 60s at least, presumably, if he's getting SS, since there's no mention of him being disabled) has a 3-year-old that the taxpayers are helping support. Maybe I am the only one who finds this bizarre?
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
Wow, what an insightful post.
OP, I really AM flabbergasted that this is allowed. Your husband is presumably in his 60s (or older) but you presumably are at least 20 years younger (actually just found a post where you said you are mid-40s), since the two of you have a 3-year-old. You really can't understand why some of us are puzzled that TAXPAYERS are supporting your 3-year-old for you?
Please note, I didn't suggest that you were doing anything illegal or even unethical -- I was just puzzled that THIS is how SS works.
You've made this statement twice now; the second time all in bold. However, you seem to either be confused or misinformed and are under the mistaken impression that the payment to the minor child is some sort of welfare payment. It's not; the payment comes out of the OASDI fund, same as any other Social Security check. It's no different than a payment to a retiree's non-working spouse that is based on the retiree's work record. Or payments to several divorced spouses based on that same work record. It all comes out of the same Social Security Fund, not general tax revenues.
The bottom line is that taxpayers aren't supporting her 3-year-old for her, unless your contention is that taxpayers are supporting any and all Social Security payments not paid directly to the retiree upon whose work record the benefits are based.
Thanks Mad Man for your explanation. When my son was burned and unable to work, my granddaughter received ss due to his disability. It's built into the ss laws so dependents don't suffer.
money is fungible. Once you cash the check, so to speak, how can you distinguish from "his" money and your money? You can't. Now, if you tell me that you can support a kid on less than $655...but what about housing, his share of meal costs, and so forth?
The 'great' thing about housing is it can be applied as a sort of freebie to custodial parents in these and similar scenarios - I'm thinking of this example as well as child support.
Let's say you have a 3BR house, since the child presumably has his own bedroom, you can claim 1/3 of your mortgage as housing support for your child, even if your marginal housing cost attributable to him is minimal. (Given the prevalence of 3BR houses, you might have bought a 3BR with or without your child in the picture.) Similarly, if you rent a 2BR apartment (e.g. you plus your child), for your child support calculation you get to claim half your rent as your contribution to your child's support, even if the marginal rent attributable to the second bedroom is only, say, 20% of the rent.
The payment for minor children of SS recipients has been in effect for quite awhile. My father was 50 when I was born. At age 65, when he began SS, I was 15 and started getting a check as well. This was in 1968. So it's not some newfangled law implemented to ripoff the taxpayer.
Most people don't have minor children when they reach SS age. So I imagine the law isn't well known. In any case, I doubt the numbers are great enough to make much of a dent in the federal budget.
I know someone who adopted their grandchild. Father is retired now and they collect ss on adopted grandchild. They put all this money into a college fund for him. I wonder how they get away with that?
I don't know that they "got away with anything."
And if the child is a minor, according to this thread we've learned that the father could be collecting the Soc Soc for his own minor child. So if the grands adopted the child, I've got a feeling something else was going on there, and I would hope they did the adoption for the child's benefit (for whatever reason.)
Rather than displaying your ignorance of the Social Security law, perhaps your time would be better spent studying said law than posting stuff like this. Also this couple might have adopted this child----as I did.
I specifically said that I WAS ignorant of this particular part of the law (as many seem to be). Not sure why you added the bit about adoption -- that has nothing to do with what I was surprised about and makes no difference in terms of the question.
I also specifically wrote,
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
Please note, I didn't suggest that you were doing anything illegal or even unethical -- I was just puzzled that THIS is how SS works.
And I AM surprised. I DID know that kids got benefits if their parent(s) died or became completely disabled (both of which make sense to me, since the person who was going to support the kid no longer can) -- but in this case, the kid is getting benefits because his parents decided to have a kid when the father was in his 60s right around the time he was retiring. THAT is what I was puzzled about -- if I were about to retire and found out I was going to have a kid, I would, well, just keep working because I now had to support said kid. I thought that's what you had to do. Obviously, I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
You've made this statement twice now; the second time all in bold. However, you seem to either be confused or misinformed and are under the mistaken impression that the payment to the minor child is some sort of welfare payment. It's not; the payment comes out of the OASDI fund, same as any other Social Security check. It's no different than a payment to a retiree's non-working spouse that is based on the retiree's work record. Or payments to several divorced spouses based on that same work record. It all comes out of the same Social Security Fund, not general tax revenues.
The bottom line is that taxpayers aren't supporting her 3-year-old for her, unless your contention is that taxpayers are supporting any and all Social Security payments not paid directly to the retiree upon whose work record the benefits are based.
MMoB, I DID realize the money came out of the SS fund, like the other payments you mentioned. And I DID know that people can receive benefits on an ex-spouse under certain conditions (e.g. length of marriage), but if the ex-spouse is still alive (as the OP's husband is) generally they can't do that until they too are retirement age (62 or older).
The OP's situation is different because they had a kid when the father was about to retire or was retired (not sure from the OP's posts). And I used the term "support" because the OP wrote that she spent the check on her son (as she is apparently "required" to) but is saving several hundred dollars a month. So yes, they're getting taxpayer money simply because the father was old when they had a kid, and they'll get it for at least the next 15 years (since the kid is now 3), even though the father could have kept working and the mother, who's only in her 40s, could work full-time as well. So taxpayers ARE helping to "support" the kid, even though he has 2 able-bodied married parents.
Again, nothing illegal or unethical, since that's what SS allows. (Note the boldface. ) Whether it SHOULD allow it is a completely different question, of course.
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.
) Whether it SHOULD allow it is a completely different question, of course.
