Wellness

[terrier3]

On 11/2/2014 annabellethecat said:

No, my husband was an investor. He did very well. When he died I sold some of our houses, land, etc and an investment company handles it.

I get 18% interest from that each year. I also own other properties, etc. So the investments give me a good income. This income is too much money right now to claim my late husband's social security.

Had he not worked so hard, I wouldn't even bother with it. But he worked very hard and paid into it. I donate a lot of money to charity so I'm not the least bit guilty.

That's what I mean about not locking into an amount.

Once you are up to full retirement age, you can earn millions a year and still collect your full SS amount.

Are you younger than 65 1/2????

It is definitely NOT age 70.

I also don't get what you mean about being "dependent"....SS encourages people to continue working and NOT collect early by the clawback feature.

[151949]

My first husband paid into SS for 20 years and died at age 39, all I ever got from SS was the $255 and his kids got support - one for 2 years and one for 3. Certainly not much for 20 years of paying in. I also always worked and paid in as well and I am 100% guilt free for taking my SS payment each month. Since I was only 30 when my husband died I never got anything for myself from his SS.

[LilacTree]

No one should feel guilty or "dependent" upon the Government for collecting Social Security. SS is not "welfare," we all paid in one way or another or we wouldn't be getting the benefits. There is nothing to feel guilty about!! I kinda don't understand that mindset.

[Annabellethecat66]

I agree that no one should feel guilty. I do have problems though with some things about the government.

I was paying $1,100.00 per month for health insurance. Then I turned 65 and suddenly I had to get Medicare because I was self-employed.

Here's my problem, I don't enjoy paying $1,100 a month for health insurance, but i can afford to pay it. I had no choice.

My problem is that there are many people like me who can afford to pay for their own health insurance (I have supplemental also), but are forced to get Medicare.

Who pays? People who don't have much money. I think if you have the money to pay health insurance (even if you're 65, you should be expected to pay for it).

It's as if (hummmmmm????) the government wants people to (as my great-grandma would say, "be beholding to the government".

I know several people who are still earning money (from investments) who have to be on Medicare but would just as soon pay for their own insurance.

It doesn't make sense. I would think it would bother other people but I guess if it bothered enough people perhaps it would change......then again, there are a lot of things that should change, but don't.

[LuvmyYorkie]

I realize that this isn't what the OP was asking about, but it's SS related. Two things "get my goat" with SS. I was married for the first time for 20 years. But, the fact that I remarried, I have no claim to my first husband's SS. Had I not remarried, I could. Secondly, why is it that when a woman's husband dies, she gets the higher of the two benefits (usually, the husbands), and hers disappears? Even though she worked all those years to earn her own? Maybe reduce it, if they have to? I don't understand completely cutting it out. They've lowered the age where you can earn all you want (without them taking $1 for every $2 you earn) from 70 to 66. My husband collects his full amount, while still working a good paying job. He's 67.

[adelle38]

On 11/2/2014 LuvmyYorkie said: I realize that this isn't what the OP was asking about, but it's SS related. Two things "get my goat" with SS. I was married for the first time for 20 years. But, the fact that I remarried, I have no claim to my first husband's SS. Had I not remarried, I could. Secondly, why is it that when a woman's husband dies, she gets the higher of the two benefits (usually, the husbands), and hers disappears? Even though she worked all those years to earn her own? Maybe reduce it, if they have to? I don't understand completely cutting it out. They've lowered the age where you can earn all you want (without them taking $1 for every $2 you earn) from 70 to 66. My husband collects his full amount, while still working a good paying job. He's 67.

Why should anyone get two people's SS? If a woman worked all those years to collect her own SS, why should she get her husbands' as well?

[LuvmyYorkie]

Like I said, I don't understand why a wife's SS payment completely goes away (if her husband dies, and she just gets his, as the higher of the two). The woman earned her own, also. That's all.

[adelle38]

On 11/2/2014 LuvmyYorkie said: Like I said, I don't understand why a wife's SS payment completely goes away (if her husband dies, and she just gets his, as the higher of the two). The woman earned her own, also. That's all.

Well you can elect to get yours then and not get your husband's. You didn't earn your husband's.

[LuvmyYorkie]

Thanks. I just stated something I'd wondered about.

[Mayfayre]

Investment income normally isn't considered income for offset purposes by Social Security unless the way the investments are structured, especially investment property, indicate that you are "working" as some sort of manager for the business or if the income is being reported as some sort of Subchapter S corporation.

Re the OP's situation: If she is on SSI, the next time she comes in for a redetermination they will have her apply for disabled widow's benefits on her husband's record, and if she is approved, they will dollar-for-dollar offset her SSI. Depending on which benefit is higher, she may wind up with the same or greater monthly amount. One of the criteria of the SSI program, which is basically a federal welfare program, is that you have to apply for any and all benefits that you are possibly eligible for. She should go into her local Social Security office to see if she's eligible for disabled widows benefits, which might be higher.

Re paying into Social Security's "pot": There is no "pot". The SS taxes that are collected go right back out to pay the benefits of the current beneficiaries. There is nothing comparable to a savings account that one later draws one's benefits from. When you die, there is no sum of money that gets "put back" into the SS coffers.

As a single, childless, employed, non-homeowner, I too was a member of the forgotten class of the tax world and was paying more in taxes than my contemporaries who were married and who were able to take deductions for mortgages, spouses and children. Politicians try to court that group with tax breaks and credits; my group gets no such breaks. The question of who is more valuable to society is not at issue and is merely a digression; the issue is the unfairness of the tax laws and unlikelihood that they will ever change and stop treating my class of taxpayers as cash cows while giving tax breaks to others.

I've seen too many people delay collecting their benefits until they were at their "full" retirement age because they wanted to collect the unreduced benefit amount. In most cases, it worked to their disadvantage. What you have to take into consideration is what you can collect now, and what you can collect if you wait. Multiply out how many months of benefits you can collect prior to your full retirement age and divide that by the difference in the full and reduced amounts. That will tell you how many months you will be ahead of the game by collecting early. Then consider your health and how long the people in your family usually live. If everyone tends to die early, then figure your odds of beating that. If everyone lives into their nineties then it might not be advantageous to take the benefits early because you'll probably live beyond the break-even point. My advice normally was that if you can collect the benefits early, do it even if you don't need the money. You can always invest it and let it work for you. Take into account what your current income and expenses are; if the money can ease some of your budgetary restrictions, well, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.