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 other words, the gender wage gap makes Social Security benefit system a lot less progressive than it might seem, essentially redistributing funds from higher-earning men to lower-earning women.
You can read the article for a complete perspective and respond as appropriate.
Case in point - relative I have. Husband was an engineer, always maxed out his earnings. Wife never worked during their 45 years of marriage. His SS now $2,366; wife $1,183 - more than many who've contributed to the system all their lives. Yes, SS is redistributive within a household, for sure. Here's a case where means testing would be useful - net worth $2 mill. plus generous pension.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. My wife will benefit if I assume room temperature first and if the ex benefits as well beginning in another two years, so be it. She "earned" it by being a SAHM for 25 years taking care of a passle of children. Not an issue for me as either the sole earner or the higher-income earner.
Case in point - relative I have. Husband was an engineer, always maxed out his earnings. Wife never worked during their 45 years of marriage. His SS now $2,366; wife $1,183 - more than many who've contributed to the system all their lives. Yes, SS is redistributive within a household, for sure. Here's a case where means testing would be useful - net worth $2 mill. plus generous pension.
How do you know that his wife never worked? Stay-at-home adults are generally working - and working hard - albeit unpaid in dollars.
How do you know that his wife never worked? Stay-at-home adults are generally working - and working hard - albeit unpaid in dollars.
My comment should have read - she never contributed to the system. Thought I had made that change. Yes, she worked some in the home. Plenty of other income there. Why should that family have a spousal benefit when their income and net worth are clearly not your average SS recipient and she never paid into the system. Geez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
So you would have the widows old curbside begging? I want part of my entitlement diverted to my spouse, should she survive me.
Are you addressing me? Did you read my post? I'm talking about means testing for wealthy people - especially when the wife never contributed to the system.
Initially, the idea behind the spousal benefit was not to leave widows penniless or moderate income people impoverished if both spouses lived to retirement and one was a stay-at-home spouse.
Nowadays, there are many wealthy women whose husbands are superrich both of whom collect benefits. If the wife never contributed and the family is wealthy, she should not be receiving benefits until husband dies.
I believe contributions should be returned. But not to wealthy people who never paid in who can well afford to manage without the benefits.
My comment should have read - she never contributed to the system. Thought I had made that change. Yes, she worked some in the home. Plenty of other income there. Why should that family have a spousal benefit when their income and net worth are clearly not your average SS recipient and she never paid into the system. Geez.
... .
Stay-at-home adults who work hard are enabling their spouse to contribute to the system on behalf of both of them . "Geez" right back atcha'
Stay-at-home adults who work hard are enabling their spouse to contribute to the system on behalf of both of them . "Geez" right back atcha'
This answer illustrates a good part of the reason that Social Security is in long range trouble. Ariadne points out the obvious: Why should a well-to-do person who never contributed to the system derive a financial benefit from it? I completely agree. Such benefits should be "means-tested". Unless the person needs the money to survive in that particular situation it shouldn't be paid.
The difficulty is that too many people are unwilling to make any cuts at all even when they wouldn't work hardship on an individual and even when the individual has not paid for the benefit. These are exactly the kinds of things we are going to ultimately have to do. If they are done sooner than later, its likely to be less traumatic and do more good. The longer we wait, the more desperate we are going to be getting in terms of cost-cutting to save the system.
I fully expect to hear more of this. You'll see one extreme where one group refuses to make any changes to Social Security even when they clearly are called for. On the other hand, there will be another extreme out there who think the whole program ought to be abolished, despite the hardship it would work untold millions of people down the road.
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.
