Wellness

[151949]

On 10/28/2014 Cinder63 said:

SS is not designed to be "fair."

I am single and singles can't designate beneficiaries, so if I die all the money goes back into the "pot" as well. I really don't see why it should be different for someone who happens to have been married.

In fact, married and childed people do a lot better out of SS. About 8 million kids are on some sort of SS now; obviously that money is partly paid for by the child free who are not creating that sort of liability for the system, either via disability of the child or the potential for the child to collect survivor's benefits.

And even non-contributing SAH spouses can collect SS and Medicare on retirement. That's a 50 percent income boost for a household in SS payments alone, let alone the value of the health care.

In order words, say I make $50,000 and pay my FICA taxes on that and collect, just for a round number, $1,000 a month at retirement plus Medicare for one person. The people next door -- a never-worked SAH spouse and her husband who makes $50,000 same as me, will collect $1,500 a month plus Medicare for two people. Same contributions, 50 percent better retirement income and all the health care for an extra person. Just because they married and made a private deal way back when that she would not contribute to the general good but rather live off his support.

I don't get how that is fair to those of us who get less while paying the full freight. And I certainly don't think anyone should be able to collect off two accounts.

No offense to the OP, I hope things work out for you, but when people complain about taxes and entitlement programs they ought to try being one of the cash cows of both the SS and federal income tax system: the single and childfree.

Certainly I can understand why you feel this way - but I was widowed at age 30 and left to care for my 2 stepchildren and , believe me, I really needed the extra cash - nurses do not make enough to raise 2 teenage children on.Even with the childrens survivor benefits money was very tight. I felt they deserved that money - after all their Dad had paid into it and he was never going to collect anything.

[moonstone dunes]

On 10/28/2014 Cinder63 said:

SS is not designed to be "fair."

I am single and singles can't designate beneficiaries, so if I die all the money goes back into the "pot" as well. I really don't see why it should be different for someone who happens to have been married.

In fact, married and childed people do a lot better out of SS. About 8 million kids are on some sort of SS now; obviously that money is partly paid for by the child free who are not creating that sort of liability for the system, either via disability of the child or the potential for the child to collect survivor's benefits.

And even non-contributing SAH spouses can collect SS and Medicare on retirement. That's a 50 percent income boost for a household in SS payments alone, let alone the value of the health care.

In order words, say I make $50,000 and pay my FICA taxes on that and collect, just for a round number, $1,000 a month at retirement plus Medicare for one person. The people next door -- a never-worked SAH spouse and her husband who makes $50,000 same as me, will collect $1,500 a month plus Medicare for two people. Same contributions, 50 percent better retirement income and all the health care for an extra person. Just because they married and made a private deal way back when that she would not contribute to the general good but rather live off his support.

I don't get how that is fair to those of us who get less while paying the full freight. And I certainly don't think anyone should be able to collect off two accounts.

No offense to the OP, I hope things work out for you, but when people complain about taxes and entitlement programs they ought to try being one of the cash cows of both the SS and federal income tax system: the single and childfree.

Many years ago I was a SAHM until my son was 3 while you were carving out your brilliant career. I was caring for a future member of our society who now is serving in our US Military. I did go back into the workforce. Sorry you felt the need to carry the full "freight".

[KJPA]

On 10/28/2014 Cinder63 said:

SS is not designed to be "fair."

I am single and singles can't designate beneficiaries, so if I die all the money goes back into the "pot" as well. I really don't see why it should be different for someone who happens to have been married.

In fact, married and childed people do a lot better out of SS. About 8 million kids are on some sort of SS now; obviously that money is partly paid for by the child free who are not creating that sort of liability for the system, either via disability of the child or the potential for the child to collect survivor's benefits.

And even non-contributing SAH spouses can collect SS and Medicare on retirement. That's a 50 percent income boost for a household in SS payments alone, let alone the value of the health care.

In order words, say I make $50,000 and pay my FICA taxes on that and collect, just for a round number, $1,000 a month at retirement plus Medicare for one person. The people next door -- a never-worked SAH spouse and her husband who makes $50,000 same as me, will collect $1,500 a month plus Medicare for two people. Same contributions, 50 percent better retirement income and all the health care for an extra person. Just because they married and made a private deal way back when that she would not contribute to the general good but rather live off his support.

I don't get how that is fair to those of us who get less while paying the full freight. And I certainly don't think anyone should be able to collect off two accounts.

No offense to the OP, I hope things work out for you, but when people complain about taxes and entitlement programs they ought to try being one of the cash cows of both the SS and federal income tax system: the single and childfree.

Cinder, I also understand why you feel the way you do but please rethink your statement about SAH not contributing to the general good. I've been both a SAH and a working woman and I feel I was lucky to be able to make those choices. Besides, there is something good to be said for a SAH. We take care of a lot of things in the neighborhood while everyone else is at work

I wish we didn't have SS and could just invest for our own retirement. But I know many people would not save enough, for whatever reasons, and taxes would have to be collected to help those with less. One way or another a civilized society takes care of its own. I will count myself fortunate indeed to be one who can contribute more to the general good than I need to take from the "pot."

[Junebug54]

On 10/28/2014 CharliF said:

Try this link:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/survivorplan/onyourown2.htm

Widows cannot apply for benefits online -- you'll need to visit your local social security office.

I'm a widow and I applied online. I have never been inside a SS office. You have to be 60 before you can collect though.

[Colonel Meow]

On 10/28/2014 Cinder63 said:

SS is not designed to be "fair."

I am single and singles can't designate beneficiaries, so if I die all the money goes back into the "pot" as well. I really don't see why it should be different for someone who happens to have been married.

In fact, married and childed people do a lot better out of SS. About 8 million kids are on some sort of SS now; obviously that money is partly paid for by the child free who are not creating that sort of liability for the system, either via disability of the child or the potential for the child to collect survivor's benefits.

And even non-contributing SAH spouses can collect SS and Medicare on retirement. That's a 50 percent income boost for a household in SS payments alone, let alone the value of the health care.

In order words, say I make $50,000 and pay my FICA taxes on that and collect, just for a round number, $1,000 a month at retirement plus Medicare for one person. The people next door -- a never-worked SAH spouse and her husband who makes $50,000 same as me, will collect $1,500 a month plus Medicare for two people. Same contributions, 50 percent better retirement income and all the health care for an extra person. Just because they married and made a private deal way back when that she would not contribute to the general good but rather live off his support.

I don't get how that is fair to those of us who get less while paying the full freight. And I certainly don't think anyone should be able to collect off two accounts.

No offense to the OP, I hope things work out for you, but when people complain about taxes and entitlement programs they ought to try being one of the cash cows of both the SS and federal income tax system: the single and childfree.

I, being single and child-free, certainly understand why you feel the way you do. I even agree with you on some points. However, I think your comment about SAHMs "not contributing to the general good" was a bit harsh and single-minded. That comment alone will likely warrant a tidal wave of negative feedback here.

[Nancy Drew]

I love the bitter women (and I am only talking about the bitter ones) who feel cheated that we (the married with children) had it soooo easy and they had to work for money while we didn't. Who do think was raising today's workforce?

[millieshops]

Insurance is always a way of spreading the burden - and came about because so many were going into old age with little or no resources. I think in the beginning some called it old age disability insurance, so I guess all of us oldsters are disabled in some ways.

As for OP's question, I'm quite certain all the advice she got was right. Widows get to collect ONE social security - it's one of the reasons it's so important for women who tend to live longer than their husbands understand the law as well as they can.

Is it fair? Probably not, but there's not much chance anyone is ever going to design a life that's fair to everyone at the same time.

BTW- had OP been a disabled young spouse prior to 1956, she would have had no social security support. I think it's about one third of SS payments go to the disabled and to dependent children rather than to retirees. That's one of the reasons that saving SS is so important and it's also one of the reason SS is so expensive today. That third of its budget wasn't in the original design. I think that burden does need to be spread to the whole nation as it is today.

[shoekitty]

On 10/28/2014 Nancy Drew said:

I love the bitter women (and I am only talking about the bitter ones) who feel cheated that we (the married with children) had it soooo easy and they had to work for money while we didn't. Who do think was raising today's workforce?

ITA

Nothing is life is meant to be totally fair to all people all the time. I haven't had kids in the house for 25 years, yet I pay taxes for schools. People who don't drive pay road taxes. It is they way it is, and works out for the best .Somebody's kids grew up to be our Doctors, lawyers, teachers, clerks. Someone's kids do your pedicures. Do people think these citizens grew up in a cave raised by wolves? Wait a minute, I know someone who might have, LOL! But they snapped out of it, LOL!

SAH Mom's, and working Mothers do double duty IMO. Just a thought

[LeaLeander]

On 10/28/2014 moonstone dunes said:

On 10/28/2014 Cinder63 said:

SS is not designed to be "fair."

I am single and singles can't designate beneficiaries, so if I die all the money goes back into the "pot" as well. I really don't see why it should be different for someone who happens to have been married.

In fact, married and childed people do a lot better out of SS. About 8 million kids are on some sort of SS now; obviously that money is partly paid for by the child free who are not creating that sort of liability for the system, either via disability of the child or the potential for the child to collect survivor's benefits.

And even non-contributing SAH spouses can collect SS and Medicare on retirement. That's a 50 percent income boost for a household in SS payments alone, let alone the value of the health care.

In order words, say I make $50,000 and pay my FICA taxes on that and collect, just for a round number, $1,000 a month at retirement plus Medicare for one person. The people next door -- a never-worked SAH spouse and her husband who makes $50,000 same as me, will collect $1,500 a month plus Medicare for two people. Same contributions, 50 percent better retirement income and all the health care for an extra person. Just because they married and made a private deal way back when that she would not contribute to the general good but rather live off his support.

I don't get how that is fair to those of us who get less while paying the full freight. And I certainly don't think anyone should be able to collect off two accounts.

No offense to the OP, I hope things work out for you, but when people complain about taxes and entitlement programs they ought to try being one of the cash cows of both the SS and federal income tax system: the single and childfree.

Many years ago I was a SAHM until my son was 3 while you were carving out your brilliant career. I was caring for a future member of our society who now is serving in our US Military. I did go back into the workforce. Sorry you felt the need to carry the full "freight".

Lots of people raise children AND contribute to the Social Security and Medicare pools.

[ccassaday]

I get so sick of people putting down stay at home moms. Yes if that is what they do they should be entiled to any spouse benefits if that spouse dies. SAHM dont sit on their butts and eat bon bons. They are raising healthy adjusted children and are taking care of their households. If they stay married when the spouse dies they should get the benefits the spouse was getting at the time of his death.