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.
We need to raise the cap so higher earners pay SS taxes on all their earnings. Springfield, there’s no reason why a married person is more entitled to half the SS than a divorced person. If anything the divorced person may need it more. People aren’t more virtuous because they stay married. SSI is not a suitable replacement either as when I worked in the field SSI checks could be really low 300-500/ month.
We need to raise the cap so higher earners pay SS taxes on all their earnings. Springfield, there’s no reason why a married person is more entitled to half the SS than a divorced person. If anything the divorced person may need it more. People aren’t more virtuous because they stay married. SSI is not a suitable replacement either as when I worked in the field SSI checks could be really low 300-500/ month.
We were talking about long ago exes collecting on their former spouses' earning records. If they divorced 30 years ago they have been single for 30 years and they weren't even around during the majority of their former spouse's working years.
Why should someone hit the jackpot because their former ex turned out to be a high earner? They probably don't even know their ex anymore and haven't for years.
Yes, there most certainly is a difference between a long term married couple and long divorced couples.
There is a difference between recently divorced and long ago divorced people.
Someone who married between the ages of 18-28 should not be eligible to collect on their ex's SS 25 or 30 or 35 years after they divorced and went their separate ways.
You said they collect 1/2 of spousal at age 62. Not so. Both must be at/past FRA for it to be 1/2. That is what I meant by lower amounts.
Please explain WHY it is crazy for two top married earners that have contributed the maximum each to not be entitled to the same benefit as two unmarried top earners that contributes the same? Because it just sounds like too much to get? They should not be entitled to their fair share based on their years if earning and contributing the most, while getting back the least percentage because…..what? It seems too much to you?
FWIW, I don’t agree entirely with Mathjak about no spousal benefits. That is absurd, IMHO. BUT current rules are not sustainable and as illustrated, too many “loopholes”, IMHO.
@wiley: Also FWIW, on a personal note, my ex -spouse of exactly 10 years (lawyer manipulated) ending marriage at age 34, never “worked” again, as in paying taxes, FICA & Medicare. She immediately left and lived with her widowed grandmother, in her paid off home, living on the settlement at first, then off her grandmothers SS while “taking care of her”, then inherited the house, sold it, moved in with her mother and lived there for free, then collected off her own meager record, with just over 40 credits, @ 62, waiting until I would file, or die, then cash in. Unfortunately for her, she died young at 62 and 10 months, so it never happened. I found out all this after the fact, from her brother, btw. Let’s just say, she had issues.
So yes, it can and does happen.
Your ex wife did not live what I would call a very happy life. And she died collecting on her own earnings so she didn't get anything extra as far as I can tell.
Unless you've done some caregiving and know what it's like to live with a declining elderly person, it's hard to understand just how difficult her life probably was. Often the caregivers fall apart and die before the ones they are caring for do. It's not an easy life.
because being a stay at home spouse is a personal choice in most cases ….being a parent is a personal choice .
having a career or marketable skill is a personal choice for a spouse .
no workie , no entitlement to someone else’s work record in my opinion.
if you are really strung out then welfare should be an option but not ss on anyone else’s record.
the system can’t afford such perks
I think the rule that needs to go away is the ex-spouse rule. Why should my ex, who was married to 3 other women in his life, get to pick and choose which ex-wife's record he would like to collect from, if his SS benefit is lower? This of course works in reverse more often, when a multi-marriage wife can pick which of her 10-year husbands she wants to claim against if her own work record was poor. In theory, multiple ex-spouses could collect off one person's work record. So a person with three exes could have 4 people collecting off their one SS account. Even if it's only half of the larger earner's benefit, it's still crazy.
My ex purposely waited until 10 years and one day to file for divorce, so he'd be eligible under my record, just in case.
Last edited by TheShadow; 03-06-2023 at 09:31 AM..
For those of you opposed to spousal benefits, does it change your opinion if the lower earning spouse had a career but because of an accident they had to take disability retirement?
My wife was Dental Assistant, initially in the private sector and then for the last 15 years or so with the Federal government. The most she earned was just over $45,000. However, because of an accident she lost most of the use of her left arm (and wears a sling/brace on it). Can't really be a Dental assistant with one arm. After trying to be accommodated by her work but them being unable to do anything other than be the receptionist (on reduced hours even at that) for going on 3 years, she reluctantly applied and was approved for disability retirement at the age of 53.
The last year before her accident she earned over $45,000. The next 4 year she earned $25,000, $8,500, $11,000, and then $6,700. She does receive does receive roughly from her disability annuity, but she no longer pays into SS or Medicare.
Her expected SS FRA amount is currently estimated to be $1,250. It was higher after her last full year of working
Do you oppose her receiving spousal based on my much higher? If she had been able to continue her career her own benefit would have been higher but still probably less than half of mine.
if she legally qualified for disability then it means she isn’t choosing not to work , she can’t work for a good reason , not just she chose to have kids or chose not to work
For those of you opposed to spousal benefits, does it change your opinion if the lower earning spouse had a career but because of an accident they had to take disability retirement?
My wife was Dental Assistant, initially in the private sector and then for the last 15 years or so with the Federal government. The most she earned was just over $45,000. However, because of an accident she lost most of the use of her left arm (and wears a sling/brace on it). Can't really be a Dental assistant with one arm. After trying to be accommodated by her work but them being unable to do anything other than be the receptionist (on reduced hours even at that) for going on 3 years, she reluctantly applied and was approved for disability retirement at the age of 53.
The last year before her accident she earned over $45,000. The next 4 year she earned $25,000, $8,500, $11,000, and then $6,700. She does receive does receive roughly from her disability annuity, but she no longer pays into SS or Medicare.
Her expected SS FRA amount is currently estimated to be $1,250. It was higher after her last full year of working
Do you oppose her receiving spousal based on my much higher? If she had been able to continue her career her own benefit would have been higher but still probably less than half of mine.
She would have been the lower earning spouse even if she had continued to work. If taking 1/2 of your SS works better for her then that's what she should do, disability or no disability. It's the way it works.
The benefit of her continuing to work was that she was able to qualify for disability when she had to stop working prematurely. Stay at home spouses can't do that unless they have recent enough work history to qualify for it. So I could become disabled and not be able to collect disability. I would still qualify for the 1/2 spousal benefit when I begin collecting social security retirement benefits. That part is no different.
For those of you opposed to spousal benefits, does it change your opinion if the lower earning spouse had a career but because of an accident they had to take disability retirement?
<snip> Do you oppose her receiving spousal based on my much higher? If she had been able to continue her career her own benefit would have been higher but still probably less than half of mine.
I don't know that anyone is against spousal benefits per se, just benefits as currently structured. I think the argument is that such coverage should be paid for by the working spouse.
For example, everyone working in a job covered by Social Security pays 6.7% of their pay for Old Age, Survivor & Disability benefits. I think that an argument can be made that if a worker wants to cover a SAHM or other nonworking or lower-paid spouse by having that spouse qualify for up to 50% of their benefit, then they should pay an additional amount for said benefit. So for example, instead of paying 6.7%, they pay something like 7%, or 7.5%, or 8% to have such coverage included.
Or perhaps another way to pay for spousal benefits is at retirement. A worker could agree to take a small reduction in his or her Social Security benefit in exchange for his or her spouse receiving up to 50% of the worker's unreduced benefit. What would be wrong with that. In fact, that is similar to the way many, if not most, pensions provide survivor benefits for spouses. The retiree accepts a smaller pension in order for the spouse to receive a survivor benefit should the worker predecease the spouse.
I don't know that anyone is against spousal benefits per se, just benefits as currently structured. I think the argument is that such coverage should be paid for by the working spouse.
For example, everyone working in a job covered by Social Security pays 6.7% of their pay for Old Age, Survivor & Disability benefits. I think that an argument can be made that if a worker wants to cover a SAHM or other nonworking or lower-paid spouse by having that spouse qualify for up to 50% of their benefit, then they should pay an additional amount for said benefit. So for example, instead of paying 6.7%, they pay something like 7%, or 7.5%, or 8% to have such coverage included.
Or perhaps another way to pay for spousal benefits is at retirement. A worker could agree to take a small reduction in his or her Social Security benefit in exchange for his or her spouse receiving up to 50% of the worker's unreduced benefit. What would be wrong with that. In fact, that is similar to the way many, if not most, pensions provide survivor benefits for spouses. The retiree accepts a smaller pension in order for the spouse to receive a survivor benefit should the worker predecease the spouse.
When it was designed, the couple had to be married for 20 years for divorced spouse benefits to apply. It is mow only 10 years. I can think of a dozen scenarios where a mooching spouse can not pay in to SS and live just fine. MANY are paid in cash only enterprises. Anywhere from totally illegal to grey areas. I know a married guy that is 55 and barely has his 40 credits with small time low income jobs, but has a couple $100k saved, in cash. He will collect iff his wifes much better earnings once past FRA. They could inherit money. They can live with some that doesn’t care that they don’t work, as i. A Sugar Spouse. Notice in my example (extreme hypothetical of course, but not remotely impossible), I always said, after FRA. ONCE past FRA (maybe even 60), one could divorce and be entitled to choose ANY previous spouse to collect off of. You understand that?
It does not work that way. A divorced spouse could not have remarried prior to age 60 (which generally means they never remarried) -- which generally means the opportunity to remarry did not exist. A lot of women determine their number one priority after divorce is to attend to their children (which is appropriate).
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.
