Justice Department Drops Opposition - Gays & Lesbians Will Receive SS Survivor Benefits (55, spouses)
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.
And why shouldn't all legal spouses receive survivor benefits?
When SS was structured over eighty years ago, same-sex marriage was unheard of, because it wasn't legal. At that time, the man was typically the breadwinner, and the wife usually a "housewife" and was not employed, and therefore did not have her own contributions to SS, so surviviors benefits were he only way she could have an income if her husband preceded her in death.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and same-sex marriage has become legal, so if you want to be fair, then yes, a legal spouse should be entitled to survivors benefits, regardless of whether they are the same or different gender. Only downside is it doesn't help an already financially-challenged program.
Given that nearly every individual and partner in a marriage today will have a work history of their own, and therefore SS contributions in their own name, the only other equitable option would be to eliminate eligibility for benefits altogether based on a spouse's contribution record.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of American adults have enough SS credits to claim benefits. Is it close to 100% as you imply?
I would have no idea where to look.
You might be able to back into a reasonably close estimate by comparing the total quantity of people receiving either SS or SSD (disability) benefits to the number receiving SSI benefits.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of American adults have enough SS credits to claim benefits. Is it close to 100% as you imply?
I suspect it would be close to 100%, especially if you are talking about adults who are not yet old enough to claim retirement benefits.
My parents were from the Silent & Greatest Generations. My dad was the breadwinner. Mom worked up until just before I was born, then never returned to work. Didn't have enough SS credits to qualify for benefits on her own record, so it was just spousal benefits for her. Mom's situation was pretty common for her peers. Many women of her generation married right out of high school, and never even worked outside the home at all.
But today, very rare to hear of an adult of age who has never been employed. If not for spousal benefits, many would probably have to rely on SSI (which is not funded by SS contributions). Today, spousal benefits usually just result in a higher benefit for one partner, rather than one partner not being eligible at all, based on their work (or lack thereof) record.
Given that SS "File and Suspend" was phased out just a few years ago as a cost-saving measure, I have to wonder if spousal benefits could be the next target.
You might be able to back into a reasonably close estimate by comparing the total quantity of people receiving either SS or SSD (disability) benefits to the number receiving SSI benefits.
If the total quantity of those collecting either SS of SSD is four times greater than the quantity of those collecting SSI, then roughly 80% of retirement age citizens have (or could have had) their own work record sufficient to claim SS.
Nine times greater would be 90%.
Nineteen times greater would be 95%.
When SS was structured over eighty years ago, same-sex marriage was unheard of, because it wasn't legal. At that time, the man was typically the breadwinner, and the wife usually a "housewife" and was not employed, and therefore did not have her own contributions to SS, so surviviors benefits were he only way she could have an income if her husband preceded her in death.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and same-sex marriage has become legal, so if you want to be fair, then yes, a legal spouse should be entitled to survivors benefits, regardless of whether they are the same or different gender. Only downside is it doesn't help an already financially-challenged program.
Given that nearly every individual and partner in a marriage today will have a work history of their own, and therefore SS contributions in their own name, the only other equitable option would be to eliminate eligibility for benefits altogether based on a spouse's contribution record.
When the higher earning spouse dies, the survivor who collects based on their work record can have their benefit increased up half their deceased spouses benefit if that amount is higher. That means the incremental cost is not the full amount of the benefit.
Ah, joy. The "tax and bribe" system of socialist insecurity has reached its pinnacle. The Matriarchy will be aghast as it now faces the consequence of its support those decades past.
Don't remember?
Oh, right.
When SocSec was conceived, the 1930s actuarial data listed that the expected lifespan for men was 55-58, while women were quite longer. So the retirement age of 65 meant that the bulk of beneficiaries would be women - who never paid taxes. And that they would enjoy the benefits from all those working men who died before getting one dime of "benefits." Woo-hoo.
It backfired when lifespans went up, and women were pushed into the workforce. Which inevitably triggered smaller families, and fewer children.
The fraud of "taxing other people's children" is now exposed. Recipient populations are growing larger, while the future taxpayer populations are declining.
Adding homosexual "spouses" will hasten its collapse.
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.
