posted on January 28, 2005 09:04:11 PM new
Linda, if you are still in your fifties when your hubby passes, unless you are disabled, you must wait until you are 60, correct?
Even if he was already collecting his SS?
Maggie
posted on January 28, 2005 09:12:25 PM new
Yes, on the first question....and I don't know if it changes or not on the second.
I know for the women in my GG who both they and their husband's were both already receiving SS when their hubby passed...their benefit were reduced...and it made it difficult for both of them as they had very small pensions coming in from outside sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 09:34:53 PM new
and....to add my little political point to that.....had their husbands SS accounts been privatized....they would have received those SS funds, paid to them when their husbands died - just like they would have from his 401k plan. Now they're just lost. More money the government gets to keep.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 09:47:19 PM new
It sounds very complicated... I will start with calling the SS offices on Monday. Many thanks for the heads-up.. Maggie
posted on January 28, 2005 10:01:47 PM new
My pleasure. I've enjoyed conversing with you this way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 11:44:36 PM new
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 29, 2005
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va., Jan. 28 - President Bush assured anxious Republican members of Congress on Friday that he would use his unique platform to sell the public on his plans for Social Security, tax reform and the rest of his ambitious agenda.
In a closed-door question-and-answer session at a party retreat at the Greenbrier resort here, Mr. Bush said he planned to use his State of the Union speech next week to disclose more details of his plan for Social Security, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said.
The president compared his proposed personal savings accounts with the Federal Thrift Savings Plan for government workers, Mr. Santorum said, meaning that individuals could be able to allocate some part of their Social Security payroll taxes to a short menu of broad-based stock and bond index funds managed by an outside administrator at a very low cost.
Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, responded to reports about the Bush speech with a statement accusing the president of using "smoke and mirrors" to explain his plan because, he said, the Federal Thrift Savings Plan is an addition to government employees' Social Security, not a substitute for part of it.
The article is very long so I cut it short and you can read the rest by clicking the link.
posted on January 28, 2005 11:54:32 PM new
Here is another article.
Social Security
Securing Social Security
Paul Lim - January 28, 2005
The phrase "Ownership Society" is undoubtedly going to be on the minds of Washington legislators in 2005. With social security in a bind and in need of reform, President Bush is looking for more proactive methods of helping senior citizens - and the next generation of social security recipients.
The Social Security system is expected to see massive setbacks by 2018, when it is projected start distributing more funds than it is taking in. In order to alleviate the problem, the President's plan seeks an inclusion of a private savings account option. The provision allows for one's Social Security contributions to be invested privately as the individual sees fit, including allowing people to deal in asset investments and marketing ventures.
A privatized and free market system is the general direction the President is looking towards, but many detractors say the administration's answer is not a long-term solution. The Associated Press quotes Peter Orzag, of the Brookings Institute, "Social Security is like a car with a flat tire," he continues, "we need to fix the flat tire, but we don't need to replace the car." While the White House says the full plan is still being crafted, a 100% shift toward Social Security privatization has still not been ruled out of the question by the Bush administration.
While the final details of the privatization plan have not been completely worked out, the AP reports that "the administration is leaning toward letting workers divert 4% of their 6.2% in payroll taxes - almost two-thirds - into investment accounts". This new plan is said to be a compromise between Bush's original plan and that of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham has been outspoken in his personal proposals for Social Security reform.
The "ownership" theme of Bush's Social Security plan really tries to encourage workers to take charge of their retirement assets.
A part of the plan includes stock market investments. Often employees are given stock options from their employee, and as expected, the stock options are all invested within the respective employers' stock interests. The new Social Security plan would give employees the right to take those stock options and diversify their investments. What is the intended result? More security. The White House says, "It is essential to provide workers with the opportunity to not have all their eggs in one basket".
The investment opportunity is said to "minimize risk", in the event one stock may tank, there are still other sound investments to keep the employee afloat. As opposed to having all stock options in one investment - at any time, that investment could deplete to virtually nothing, leaving the worker with worthless stock options.
Female employees would also be huge recipients of security from the reform. The legislation sets Social Security rights for women who take maternity leave from work. Private accounts are also said to guarantee rights to women who have suffered divorce and also expand benefits for widows. The Bush administration calls it a "catch up" contribution and that the expanded aid would help women who find themselves in situations of poverty.
Also, employers would be required to give employees the information regarding financial investments and choices of what to do with their assets. Such assistance to workers includes allowing financial advisors into the workplace to help guide workers towards their desired investment path. Employers would also be required to provide their workers with a quarterly update on their pensions. This stipulation is expected to allow workers to make more informed decisions with a more frequently updated series of information; currently, employers are only required to give annual updates. Since there will be a stronger emphasis on the stock market, the ever-changing climate of international finance would oblige more frequent updates of personal financial information.
Over the next ten years, the government tax relief will provide around $50 billion for taxpayers and raise contribution limits on IRAs and 401(K)s. With the new Social Security policy, the extra money in everybody's pockets is expected to spur the new Social Security investments - and build more value in already existing assets.
In the end, the Social Security reforms are not just meant to help alleviate an impending crisis, but also stimulate the economy with more money flowing from the private sector. The plan looks to circumvent the bureaucratic payment process of retirement assets, and instead allow the worker to hold these assets themselves. The freedom for employees to utilize their money however they wish is a boon to taxpayers. They have the option to diversify their investment, thus gaining more investment security or even to maximize their earnings with increased IRA payments or making the right investments. With more investments in banks and markets because of the Bush tax cuts, a stronger economy and expanded national savings may just be positive side effects of the new reforms.
posted on January 29, 2005 06:46:37 AM new
linduh says, ""and....to add my little political point to that.....had their husbands SS accounts been privatized....they would have received those SS funds, paid to them when their husbands died - just like they would have from his 401k plan. Now they're just lost. More money the government gets to keep.""
More BS, you have NO way of knowing that ...YOU do not know what would happen under those specific conditions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
posted on January 29, 2005 07:16:19 AM new
New AARP Poll Finds Appeal of Social Security Private Accounts Drops When Consequences Are Known
Americans seek only modest changes to strengthen the program
January 24, 2005
If given a choice, three-in-five Americans would strengthen Social Security with as few changes as possible, according to a poll conducted by AARP. The poll also found that the more Americans learn about diverting Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, the less they like the idea.
Two-thirds (66%) of Americans age 30 and above support keeping Social Security as is, including 6 in 10 (62%) Gen Xers ages 30-39. A similar number of leading edge boomers ages 50-59 (65%) and a clear majority (57%) of boomers ages 40-49 agreed.
"A majority of Americans, even younger adults, would like to see Social Security continued substantially as it is today," said AARP CEO Bill Novelli.
"Social Security does need to be strengthened and people accept that fact. On one hand, the public has been told to have doubts about their Social Security benefits. On the other hand, they expect the government to deliver on its obligation to honor those benefits." Novelli added.
More than two-thirds of people under age 50 are not confident that Social Security will be there for them, the AARP poll indicates. But a strong majority of all those polled (83%), agreed that Social Security should be strengthened rather than replaced, and that private accounts would hurt Social Security (60%).
"Most people who are not retired or close to retirement know little about Social Security," said Novelli. "A political undercurrent of uncertainty contributes to support for investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market. But support falls away the more people learn about private accounts and how they might work," he concluded.
After initial supporters had been exposed to all of the consequences of diverting payroll taxes to fund private accounts, only 10% still favored them. This means, in the context of the entire survey sample, that only 5% favored this approach once the consequences were evident.
The survey found that 43% initially supported the concept of diverting payroll contributions to fund private accounts. But barely a quarter continued to support private accounts if it meant a lower Social Security benefit in retirement. The $1 trillion in additional debt in order to pay Social Security benefits to current beneficiaries reduced support to less than a fifth (18%) of respondents. Leaving responsibility for this debt and for Social Security's current shortfall to our children reduced support even more, to 17%.
"A lack of knowledge about private accounts is a dangerous thing," explained Novelli. When people are exposed to the full details of private accounts, support falls to only 5 percent."
posted on January 29, 2005 08:34:08 AM new
If you believe everything AARP says then you have to research it and see that is just another organization with a 650 million dollar budget that pays its CEO a half a million dollars a year.
It is not the speaking voice of all retired americans. They are gearing their advertisements to the 30 year olds and telling them that there will be no SS when they retire if they privitize it. Just another scare tactic.
I pay quite a bit less for American Family Insurance than the same offered by ARRP. Why? It doesn't matter the cost of insurance it is what Medicare will pay and they don't pay more if you have AARP. It is universally the same.
posted on January 29, 2005 08:57:38 AM new
lala says, """If you believe everything AARP says then you have to research it and see that is just another organization with a 650 million dollar budget that pays its CEO a half a million dollars a year."""
If you believe everything bush says then you should research it and see that he is illegally paying people to say just what he wants.
"""It is not the speaking voice of all retired americans. They are gearing their advertisements to the 30 year olds and telling them that there will be no SS when they retire if they privitize it. Just another scare tactic. """
Bush is not the speaking voice of all retired (or not) Americans. He is gearing his advertisements to the 30 year olds to convince them that there will be no SS when they retire if it is not privatized. Just another scare tactic....the sky ISN'T falling, henny penny.
"""I pay quite a bit less for American Family Insurance than the same offered by ARRP. Why? It doesn't matter the cost of insurance it is what Medicare will pay and they don't pay more if you have AARP. It is universally the same. ""
posted on January 29, 2005 09:59:27 AM new
Yes, twelve...one of the reasons I like what's being proposed....ownership of one's own account....that could be passed down to their heirs when they die. Not taking the chance it will never be used. OR that one will die after only receiving a few short months of SS checks.
In my own case, because I was under age 60 when my husband died...and I'm not [yet ] disabled nor do I have any dependents...all the money he paid into SS all his working life could be lost.
Should I die before I reach age 60...our heirs will receive nothing. NADA!! But under an ownership account...our son's would be able to see the money their father had taken out of his paycheck all those years. As it stands now...I might be able to collect from his account and I might not. But if I am able to...and then I die...my sons still wouldn't see anything from the SS my husband paid all those years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 29, 2005 10:02 AM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 29, 2005 10:09 AM ]
posted on January 29, 2005 10:06:22 AM new
The AARP has been accused of not using up-to-date data in their polls.
AARP's leadership may oppose personal accounts, but its younger members likely support them. (A post-election Gallup poll showed 53 percent support among Americans aged 50-64, with 43 percent opposed.)
Making matters worse, AARP supports letting the government invest the Social Security trust fund in the stock market, a plan that both Alan Greenspan and Al Gore thought risked political control over the economy.
A July 2002 Zogby International poll found that likely voters over 50 favor personal accounts over government investment by a nearly two-to-one margin. The AARP's leadership is as out of step with its next generation of members as its policy paper is with the facts.
AARP has a position of trust among America's seniors but does its members a disservice by spreading disinformation about reform options they may want to consider. AARP's recent Social Security publications are at odds with its membership, with the findings of every recent bipartisan commission, and with the nonpartisan analysis of Social Security's actuaries. That doesn't bode well for the AARP's chances to play the honest broker on Social Security.
posted on January 29, 2005 10:46:34 AM new
I can comprehend english very well crowfart, when are you going to start?
Linda that is a true fact, when my father died my younger sister got to use his SS and that was it... all the remaining money went back into the pool...
posted on January 29, 2005 11:15:59 AM new
And on the day you retire...on the day your spouse dies or parent dies.........on the day you are disabled....
how will the stock market be doing that day ?????????????
Who will be overseeing your accounts...some of those "HONEST" stockbrokers ???????
Never heard of corruption in the stock market...well, pull your head out.........
posted on January 29, 2005 12:07:15 PM new
There are no guarantees in life...nor in our SS program as it is.
It's in the hands of our political leader's whim's. I'd rather have more control of my OWN money - be the one making decisions about how and where it goes than I would the government who keeps spending it and we are on a pay-as-you-go system that actually has nothing but paper promises [IOU's}, as it currently stands.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 29, 2005 12:09 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2005 12:43:32 PM newownership of one's own account....that could be passed down to their heirs when they die. Not taking the chance it will never be used. OR that one will die after only receiving a few short months of SS checks.
Linda why do you feel you should be entitled to your spouse's SS benefits. He worked to pay into the program, not you. The same goes for your heirs, why do you feel the amount your spouse paid into the program should be passed along so someone else who is contributing their own money into the program?
We all pay into SS. I am sure there are people that pay into it that never reap the benefits of what they contributed. However on the flip side there are people that paid into that are reaping more than what they contributed. Is that any more just than what you proposed? It is just like insurance, we don't reap any benefit from it unless we file a claim. We don't ask for the amount of money to be returned to us if we never file a claim.
The system does has it drawbacks but the system has been around for 70+ years, why all of a sudden do we need to start from scratch when the system is not broke. People should stop relying on SS as their "retirement fund". Instead they should build their own retirement fund as they age. SS should be another source of income but not one's entire source of income.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 29, 2005 01:32:05 PM newLinda why do you feel you should be entitled to your spouse's SS benefits. He worked to pay into the program, not you.
Because the entitlement program was set up and has been changed by our Congress' to give 'entitle' me to those benefits.
The same goes for your heirs, why do you feel the amount your spouse paid into the program should be passed along so someone else who is contributing their own money into the program?
Because IF YOU'D READ I personally would support/vote for totally eliminating the SS program IF there was a viable way to honor what people who've paid into it for most of their lives could get what they were promised.
We all pay into SS. I am sure there are people that pay into it that never reap the benefits of what they contributed. However on the flip side there are people that paid into that are reaping more than what they contributed.
Maybe you could compare the numbers from both groups and prove which group is in the majority....the winners or the losers. Most of the winners are the one's who have already collecting SS benefits for years....NOT the young coming up in the future. Those are the one's who WON'T be benefitting from SS when more SS money is going out than being brought in.
Plus....I'm in the group that thinks it's unfair to black payee's into the SS system. Their lifespans are years less than whites. They die much younger for several different reasons.
Is that any more just than what you proposed? It is just like insurance, we don't reap any benefit from it unless we file a claim. We don't ask for the amount of money to be returned to us if we never file a claim. Get a clue...you're NOT FORCED TO PAY for insurance. You can choose to do without it....NOT SO with SS. It's a FORCED program.
The system does has it drawbacks but the system has been around for 70+ years, why all of a sudden do we need to start from scratch when the system is not broke.
Funny how the clinton administration was so very worried and wanted to deal with just this issue....giving the projected surplus to fund the SS program. They felt it needed the funding too. And you're wrong about it's not broke. This isn't something we can just keep putting off. They known for a very long time the system is going to not be bringing in enough to pay out on their promises. A VERY long time. They've just been letting it slide.
When SS started there were approx. 33-36 working payers for every ONE SS receiptant. Now it's 3 to 1. Projected to be 2 to 1 and THAT my dear is the problem you're claiming isn't a problem. Just think....if we have gay marriage...then the system will be even MORE in trouble than it already will be if nothing is done.
People should stop relying on SS as their "retirement fund". Instead they should build their own retirement fund as they age. SS should be another source of income but not one's entire source of income.
I couldn't agree more. But that's NOT what the issue is. The issue is whether or not people should have control over their own retirement funds...make their own decisions...or have the government remain their nanny...because they can't take care of their own finances.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 29, 2005 02:45:48 PM newLinda why do you feel you should be entitled to your spouse's SS benefits. He worked to pay into the program, not you.
Because the entitlement program was set up and has been changed by our Congress' to give 'entitle' me to those benefits.
I think you just pointed out what has been causing the current situation with SS. You have people earning benefits that never paid into the program.
If I were to die today. I would not receive any benefits, but what do I care. I am dead. It does not effect me in any way. The government is the "looser", it has one less person it is getting tax money from.
Get a clue...you're NOT FORCED TO PAY for insurance.
Yes you are forced to get insurance in some instances. How many mortgage companies require you to have homeowner's insurance before giving you a mortgage? How many states require drivers to have some basic auto insurance before you can legally drive? In these situations you are paying for something you made never use. You are not require to have life insurance that I know of.
Maybe you could compare the numbers from both groups and prove which group is in the majority....the winners or the losers. Most of the winners are the one's who have already collecting SS benefits for years....NOT the young coming up in the future. Those are the one's who WON'T be benefitting from SS when more SS money is going out than being brought in.
I don't think I need to do that based on your answers. The ones that have reaped more benefits than they paid into the program are the ones that are causing the current situation.
The issue is whether or not people should have control over their own retirement funds...make their own decisions...or have the government remain their nanny...because they can't take care of their own finances.
People do have control over their own retirement funds. They can decide when they are young to prepare for their own retirement by setting up their own retirement plans and pay into them as they age or rely on the government to give them a nest egg. If the decide on the later "plan" then they will likely not have anything at retirement.
I came to the realization that SS would not be able to give me any benefits after retirement so I am planning accordingly.
I think people should stop thinking of SS in any form as a "savings account" and think of it as another "tax" they need to pay.
I'm in the group that thinks it's unfair to black payee's into the SS system. Their lifespans are years less than whites. They die much younger for several different reasons.
If you think about it, blacks probably pay less into the program than whites do. What is the pay difference between the average 35 year old black man and a white man of the same age? Blacks may have a shorter life span than whites but they also contribute less. The same goes for men and women. Women live longer than men but who contributes more into SS?
You think that is unfair but then you say this:
Just think....if we have gay marriage...then the system will be even MORE in trouble than it already will be if nothing is done.
Yes I wonder about your sense of fairness, but we will not need to get into that subject in this thread. With that said I am going to add this: in many long term gay relationships you have both people working and paying into SS and making more than a "traditional family" of four where only the husband works pays into SS.
Your reasons don't make sense.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 29, 2005 03:26:30 PM new
"in many long term gay relationships you have both people working and paying into SS and making more than a "traditional family" of four where only the husband works pays into SS".
You know this for sure. There is no benchmark on how long gay relationships last. Sure and each one gets a SS check.
Take Ellen hers was very short term.
You stated yourself that your partner does not work.
You should be in favor of privatizing SS then your partner could benefit in YOUR working.
"What is the pay difference between the average 35 year old black man and a white man of the same age? Blacks may have a shorter life span than whites but they also contribute less. The same goes for men and women. Women live longer than men but who contributes more into SS?"
Yes and the black man gets less in SS. The same doesn't go for men and women many women are making more than their husbands. But the one whether man or women the one making the less will get less SS.
The only person who gets more SS is the disabled one and I will bet there is more men than women on disability...JMHO from working in a clinic doing Medical Records. When a disabled person reaches 62 the disabled person gets the maximum for his pay in SS and then at age 65 they are taken off the disabled list and put on regular SS with the same benefits. The disabled person also gets Medicare unlike a regular person retiring at age 62. I think the disabled person gets Medicare 2 years after he is disabled no matter the age.
It's the disabled person that reaps more of the benefits than any one else. There are many young people on disability and that takes a good chunk out of SS including Medicare. By young I mean 40-60 years of age. Now I am not knocking disability just trying to explain where a lot of the SS money is going.
posted on January 29, 2005 04:15:50 PM newYou have people earning benefits that never paid into the program. Yes, survivors of those who did pay. And when SS was first passed we didn't pay disability claims...nor survivor benefits. It was strickly a retirement/'protection from poverty' entitlement bill because of what happened during the depression and that era.
If I were to die today. I would not receive any benefits, but what do I care. I am dead. It does not effect me in any way. The government is the "looser", it has one less person it is getting tax money from. I think it would equal out...one less to collect in later years too. Plus I think that's pretty selfish of you. Most DO have families they leave behind that might just need money to survive.
On: you're NOT FORCED TO PAY for insurance - yes you are.
I don't see your examples as being the same thing. You aren't forced to buy a home, car, drive, life ins. etc. it's a choice/decision. With paying SS there is no choice nor an opt-out provision for those who don't want to pay it. I believe Fed. workers and some teachers can opt-out but other than that...you want to eat [work] you pay.
On the winners or the losers.
I don't think I need to do that based on your answers. The ones that have reaped more benefits than they paid into the program are the ones that are causing the current situation. So what are you proposing we do...cut THEIR BENEFITS? LOL....The reason for our current situation is politicians who couldn't keep their hands off the SS fund/trust. They spent that money and gave IOU's. THAT'S the problem...not those who have earned and worked all their life...and get these TINY benefits. NOW the problem is too few workers to pay for the increasing number of
retiree's who will be getting benefits.
People do have control over their own retirement funds.
NOT anything related to how their SS money is used...nor invested...not any control not to use that system and put those thousands of dollars in your own [outside] investment plan...as we do with 401ks. And should a vote of Congress decide to make the program obsolute, reduce promised benefits, add more people to who qualifies to receive benefits...things can easily be changed. No control of our own money.
I'd sure as heck like to hear just how it would affect/bother YOU or YOUR life if I want to invest part of my own funds? Especially since that appears to me to be the constant motto of the left? How does it affect your day to day life? lol If you choose not to opt-into the proposed program...you won't have to. But you think you have the right to tell me I can't? If so...I'd certainly LOVE to hear your reasoning behind that control.
They can decide when they are young to prepare for their own retirement by setting up their own retirement plans and pay into them as they age or rely on the government to give them a nest egg.
That's true. Look logan...the whole reason we even have this entitlement program is because many on the left think people are TOO stupid to take care of themselves...and won't save to take care of themselves. And don't want to see those who DIDN'T have the ability to save for retirement, standing in the soup lines.
If the decide on the later "plan" then they will likely not have anything at retirement. Yea...it's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Not the governments job to take care of people who didn't take care of their own future.
I came to the realization that SS would not be able to give me any benefits after retirement so I am planning accordingly.
Good for you...that's what I'd certainly like to see ALL doing.
I think people should stop thinking of SS in any form as a "savings account" and think of it as another "tax" they need to pay.
LOL...it IS a tax....so again what are you saying? They should just be taxed and have no benefits? And just WHO is suggesting this new idea? Because I haven't seen anyone who's promoting what you're talking about - certainly not this President.
On: unfair to black payee's into the SS system -
If you think about it, blacks probably pay less into the program than whites do. What is the pay difference between the average 35 year old black man and a white man of the same age? Blacks may have a shorter life span than whites but they also contribute less. The same goes for men and women. Women live longer than men but who contributes more into SS? If I think about it? LOL I hope you're aware that the LESS you earn the SMALLER your SS benefits And when you die...normally the spouse only gets 1/2 of that and what is paid for your surviving underaged children would even be less. When you pay the max. amount...you get the maximum benefits. They earn less...on the whole.
On women earnings: It depends....believe it or not logan there are many women who make much more money than men do. It's all decided on which income will provide the MOST in SS benefit payments.
You think that is unfair but then you say this: if we have gay marriage. Yep....more takers in the system. Same goes with illegals being paid social security benefits.
[i]in many long term gay relationships you have both people working and paying into SS and making more than a "traditional family" of four where only the husband works pays into SS.
Yes you do...but married couples [wife stays home OR WORKS] don't [usually] BOTH get their SS benefits they've earned either - like two single gays do. The biggest wage earner is the first account...and then when the wife/husband with a lesser income retires...they get approx. [each situation differs] 1/2 [or much less] - whichever is larger.
Your reasons don't make sense. Of course they don't to someone like you who is AGAINST CHOICE. Because the way they're talking about setting the SS program up is if you don't want to use the investment plans....then you can choose not to.
[b]What you want though, is the control to make MY choice for me and millions of other taxpayers. NOT your place[/i]. This program that's being discussed gives people CHOICE...and an ability to OWN their own account....decide where their own money goes - even if that is to choose to continue with our present system...leave it to their heirs...just like what's done with 401k's.
Choice is a GOOD thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 29, 2005 04:20:26 PM new
Libra - If I may....and only because you have mentioned that you and your husband both worked and worked different shifts, etc. in order to stay home to raise your daughter....and not to pry into your personal earnings... [that being said ]
When you and your husband both retired and whoever retired last, went to apply for their SS benefits....were you BOTH able to get your OWN benefits from your own jobs? or did you get a part of his even though you too had worked for years?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 29, 2005 04:37:07 PM new
I just read this..which only adds to my confusion....
Both a husband and wife are, of course, eligible for their own retirement benefits based on their own work records. Often, however, one spouse may work at much lower-paying jobs throughout his or her career, or stay at home to care for the couple’s children. In that case, Social Security always pays the lower-earning spouse whatever benefit he or she might have earned through work – and then does calculations to see if his or her benefits “as a spouse” would be higher. If they would be, that person would get a combination of benefits equaling the higher spouse’s benefit.
And that is where the calculations and the decision making can become tricky.
A spouse is entitled to one-half of the retired worker's full benefit amount, unless the spouse begins collecting benefits before his or her own full retirement age. In that case, the amount of the spouse’s benefit is permanently reduced.
posted on January 29, 2005 04:51:11 PM new
lol - That's the way I've always understood it to be maggie....but of course, as the SS website says - ask them as situations vary.
But one of my girlfriends worked as an HR Manager for a health care HMO most of her career. Her husband drove an 18 wheeler. Both paid max. SS taxes each year so both qualified for the highest SS payment. I just remember her complaining that it wasn't fair when she retired that they couldn't both get their FULL benefits. Not sure why she couldn't....might have had to do with his passing after only being retired 4 months...I really don't know. But she did express her upset that when both worked and paid into the system...it didn't work like it would have had they not been married. [shrugging shoulders here].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
] disabled nor do I have any dependents...all the money he paid into SS all his working life could be lost.
?????????????