Living only on social security

Muskrat said:
That was a great benefit of the ACA…you could not be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. Many many people thank their lucky stars about that.
Click to expand...
OR you would pay higher premiums if you had pre-existing conditions. Rather like homeowner's insurance being higher if you have a shake shingle roof. Or higher premiums on car insurance if you have DUIs or teenage drivers in the home.

But now ACA spreads all the cost to everyone, even if they never get sick. That is also what is happening to the price of homeowners insurance: you want to live near the coast, or in a forest, go ahead, but don't expect someone in Arizona desert to pay the same rate as you...but that is what is happening.

NOTHING in life is FREE.
 

Muskrat said:
@CooCooforCoCoPuffs ….I am a humanitarian. My ex used to call me his “commie pinko environmentalist ex wife”. I was proud of that…actually. Life is not fair. I do my share…and will do more if needed. Because I can…and it is right.
Click to expand...
Life certainly is not fair and we all do what we can do to help those we deem need help. Am more a pragmatist. I have found people to be of two kinds: givers and takers. I tend to be a giver when I can, probably to a fault.
 

It really isn't smart to subsidize irresponsibility. Just as parents should not give in to a kid who insists on fast food or pudding or cookies instead of proper meals.

I think some people must have led some privileged, coddled lives. That's fine, but are they entitled to partake in decisions that impact society at large? Should they be?

Some people see a kitten and drool all over themselves. Not realizing that cats are the number one invasive carnivore species throughout the world.
 
Some people think that feeding bears will make them go away.
No: it enables the bear to become dependent.
Communist/socialist countries love dependent lambs.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Personally, I think SS contributions should NOT stop at a particular income as it does (I think it is $168,600).

I also think anyone who isn't at a healthy body weight, who smokes, has Type 2 diabetes (preventable with exercise and good body weight, waist circumference), is an alcoholic, and does drugs should pay a LARGER percentage INTO to Medicare funds during their working years. Why? Because those are the people who are going to NEED/suck more Medicare funds when they end up sicker than those persons who watch their weight, habits, and stay healthy.
Click to expand...
They pay enough already. We all pay enough already. The program was doomed to failure before it ever began.
 
dilettante said:
It really isn't smart to subsidize irresponsibility. Just as parents should not give in to a kid who insists on fast food or pudding or cookies instead of proper meals.

I think some people must have led some privileged, coddled lives. That's fine, but are they entitled to partake in decisions that impact society at large? Should they be?

Some people see a kitten and drool all over themselves. Not realizing that cats are the number one invasive carnivore species throughout the world.
Click to expand...

It's your own fault you know. You boys gave us the right to vote.

And cats are number two.
 
Last edited:
Social Security is not free. A huge bite out of my paycheck went to it for 40 years. Although I know people who only worked just enough to collect, and only part time for a year or two before they would be eligible. But I don't think they get a bundle back each month. I think I heard that, but I don't know how much they get.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
That is no cuts and changes to those ALREADY retired and ON SS. They can and will, and MUST make changes for those coming onto SS, say by 2030. The most likely and first change will be the amount those working will be contributing to the funds.

Personally, I think SS contributions should NOT stop at a particular income as it does (I think it is $168,600).

I also think anyone who isn't at a healthy body weight, who smokes, has Type 2 diabetes (preventable with exercise and good body weight, waist circumference), is an alcoholic, and does drugs should pay a LARGER percentage INTO to Medicare funds during their working years. Why? Because those are the people who are going to NEED/suck more Medicare funds when they end up sicker than those persons who watch their weight, habits, and stay healthy.
Click to expand...
Many people have type 2 diabetes despite doing everything correctly because of genetics. Some diseases run in families.

HBP runs in my mom’s side of the family no matter what people do everyone gets it. A healthy diet, weight and exercise certainly helps but genetics can be stronger. But they also all lived long lives despite it.
 
One thing I don't understand is that people get an amount based on a previous wage. It seems like social security should be to keep people from starving
C50 said:
I haven't touched any retirement or investment money in the six years I've been receiving SS. I'm not living poor either, I spend money on trips and home projects often and still stay ahead financially, but it sure helped to go into retirement debt free.
Click to expand...
I'd keep that to yourself, or someone will decide to take it away.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Example #2: If my spouse of 15 years is getting $4,200. in SS on the day he dies, and I am making $1,000. in SS off my earned income over 40 years of employment, I get 50%, which would be $2,100. - $1,000 (what I already get on my own) = 1,100 + $1,000 = $2200. when he dies - but I do NOT get $2,100. (1/2 of his) and also my $1,000 for $3100.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about your current spouse of 15 years receiving $4200/month in SS: if he predeceases you and your SS is $1000, you'll get a total of $4200/month: $1000 against your contributions and $3100 against his. If he's your ex-spouse, you'll get what you're entitled to right now: $2100 a month: $1000 against your contributions and $1100 against his.

Only his current spouse would receive the $4200/month, assuming she meets SS's qualifications.
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Another example: IF a woman, age 55, is married to husband "A", age 55, for THIRTY years, and he divorces her for new Lady Woo-Hoo age 24, and woman finds her new husband "B" BEFORE she turns 60, she LOSES any SS she was entitled to from the man she was married to for 30 years, UNLESS she divorces husband #2 before he dies.
Click to expand...
If the ex-husband is going to receive high SS benefits and the ex-wife remarries between 55 and 59, she's a fool who was old enough to know better. Better to wait to 60 to marry. If new husband has higher benefits than the ex, AND lives long enough (and them marriage holds together long enough) for her to qualify for his benefits, so much the better. Not much more to say about that.
 
StarSong said:
If we're talking about your current spouse of 15 years receiving $4200/month in SS: if he predeceases you and your SS is $1000, you'll get a total of $4200/month: $1000 against your contributions and $3100 against his. If he's your ex-spouse, you'll get what you're entitled to right now: $2100 a month: $1000 against your contributions and $1100 against his.

Only his current spouse would receive the $4200/month, assuming she meets SS's qualifications.

If the ex-husband is going to receive high SS benefits and the ex-wife remarries between 55 and 59, she's a fool who was old enough to know better. Better to wait to 60 to marry. If new husband has higher benefits than the ex, AND lives long enough (and them marriage holds together long enough) for her to qualify for his benefits, so much the better. Not much more to say about that.
Click to expand...
"If the ex-husband is going to receive high SS benefits and the ex-wife remarries between 55 and 59, she's a fool who was old enough to know better. Better to wait to 60 to marry. If new husband has higher benefits than the ex, AND lives long enough (and them marriage holds together long enough) for her to qualify for his benefits, so much the better. Not much more to say about that".

Women between 55 and 59 need to be educated regarding SS and really shouldn't be classified as "fools".
There are many many SS nit-noid facts that are not just out there and easy to find unless one digs deep or is relevant at the time.

For example: if a spouse is disabled before the age of 60, the age 60 rule does NOT apply. One CAN remarry BEFORE 60 if DISABLED; but cannot remarry before age 50 and still keep benefits. A spouse who is disabled before age 60, can remarry anytime after age FIFTY and still retain eligibility for ex spouse SS benefits as long as they were married 10 years.
 
"If we're talking about your current spouse of 15 years receiving $4200/month in SS: if he predeceases you and your SS is $1000, you'll get a total of $4200/month: $1000 against your contributions and $3100 against his. If he's your ex-spouse, you'll get what you're entitled to right now: $2100 a month: $1000 against your contributions and $1100 against his."

Was referring to ex spouse situation not current spouse.

Not even sure of the REASON that age 60 rule was even created.
Another rule that was created in 2012 regarding military pensions also "screws" women - who are usually (but not always) the veteran (I for one AM a female veteran), but a spouse of a veteran.

The newer 2012 rule is that a spouse MUST be married 20 YEARS to a military retiree AND the 20 years of marriage MUST be within the 20 years of service in order for an ex spouse to get a 50/50 split of a retiree's pension benefit.

So: if you are married 19 years of the 20 years your spouse was in the military, you are not entitled to a 50/50 split and must petition in civil court to get ANY division of a military pension after 2012. With SS it is only 10 years and used to be that way for military pensions before 2012.

Example: Married to a military retiree for 27 years. Retiree has in active duty as well as reserve service from 1971-1996; eligible for retirement pay at age 60 (reserve retirement pay begins at age 60; full active service members are eligible for retirement pay and benefits after 20 years regardless of age at retirement). Marriage was from 1985-2012 (27 years). Married 11 years of active/reserve service (more than 50% of service time). Ex spouse won only 11% of ex retirement pay, though they were married MORE than 50% of service time.

Reasonableness would have been 25% of the ex's retirement pay, no, as the marriage began before the 2012 rule and entire 27 years was BEFORE the 2012 20 in 20 rule.

Any thoughts?
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
The newer 2012 rule is that a spouse MUST be married 20 YEARS to a military retiree AND the 20 years of marriage MUST be within the 20 years of service in order for an ex spouse to get a 50/50 split of a retiree's pension benefit.
Click to expand...
I think that 's not unreasonable. If the non-military retiree wasn't there part of his/her partner's service period, why would/should that person get a 50/50 split of the pension?

People going into late marriages tend to negotiate things like that with pre-nups, i.e., if there's a split, you keep your already accrued pensions and I'll keep mine. In this case, the government is establishing those rules rather than leaving it to a pre-nup.

Looking at it another way, if you weren't married while he served his country, and therefore didn't make whatever sacrifices that involved, why should you be compensated for them with part of his pension.

Don't know the whys and wherefores of the age 60 marriage rule, but I stand by my statement that an unmarried woman between 55 and 60 is old enough to know SS is coming at her fast, and to learn what the rules are.

CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Women between 55 and 59 need to be educated regarding SS and really shouldn't be classified as "fools".
There are many many SS nit-noid facts that are not just out there and easy to find unless one digs deep or is relevant at the time.

For example: if a spouse is disabled before the age of 60, the age 60 rule does NOT apply. One CAN remarry BEFORE 60 if DISABLED; but cannot remarry before age 50 and still keep benefits. A spouse who is disabled before age 60, can remarry anytime after age FIFTY and still retain eligibility for ex spouse SS benefits as long as they were married 10 years.
Click to expand...
Anyone who graduated HS can easily parse SS rules, IF they take the time to research it. It's nothing short of astonishing to see how many people don't bother fully investigating something so crucial to their financial future. Instead they lazily take advice from their (decidedly non expert) brothers-in-law, internet blathering by conspiracy theorists, low level beaurocrats at SS field offices who believe all kinds of disastrous, partisan political futures (like SS will be gone in 10 years so you better get it while you can), and other hardly credible sources.

Public libraries and the SS website itself contain a wealth of expert information describing how to navigate specific situations.

I studied and weighed numerous possibilities for MONTHS before coming up with DH & my SS strategy and frequently revisited it to make sure rules and our situation hadn't changed. It's surprising how many friends/relatives have said to me, "How did you know you could do that?" How? I put in the time and effort to learn, that's how.
 
StarSong said:
I think that 's not unreasonable. If the non-military retiree wasn't there part of his/her partner's service period, why would/should that person get a 50/50 split of the pension?

People going into late marriages tend to negotiate things like that with pre-nups, i.e., if there's a split, you keep your already accrued pensions and I'll keep mine. In this case, the government is establishing those rules rather than leaving it to a pre-nup.

Looking at it another way, if you weren't married while he served his country, and therefore didn't make whatever sacrifices that involved, why should you be compensated for them with part of his pension.

Don't know the whys and wherefores of the age 60 marriage rule, but I stand by my statement that an unmarried woman between 55 and 60 is old enough to know SS is coming at her fast, and to learn what the rules are.


Anyone who graduated HS can easily parse SS rules, IF they take the time to research it. It's nothing short of astonishing to see how many people don't bother fully investigating something so crucial to their financial future. Instead they lazily take advice from their (decidedly non expert) brothers-in-law, internet blathering by conspiracy theorists, low level beaurocrats at SS field offices who believe all kinds of disastrous, partisan political futures (like SS will be gone in 10 years so you better get it while you can), and other hardly credible sources.

Public libraries and the SS website itself contain a wealth of expert information describing how to navigate specific situations.

I studied and weighed numerous possibilities for MONTHS before coming up with DH & my SS strategy and frequently revisited it to make sure rules and our situation hadn't changed. It's surprising how many friends/relatives have said to me, "How did you know you could do that?" How? I put in the time and effort to learn, that's how.
Click to expand...
exactly ..like i said in another thread , people will research a car or refrigerator endlessly .

they research vacations and restaurants.

but when it comes to something as importand as their financial well bring and the tjings that go with it , they can’t be bothered .

but then it’s everyone else’s fault when they get poor results or made bad choices
 
The social security fairness act passed by a huge majority today. It’s been a stressful 3 days with all the various votes and a few senators trying to kill the bill by adding amendments. President Biden has said he will sign it.

I’m thrilled as right now I’m only receiving 40% of my SS and it will improve my quality of life. It was a bipartisan effort and the incoming administration supported it also. Life is good!!
 
StarSong said:
"...It's surprising how many friends/relatives have said to me, "How did you know you could do that?" How? I put in the time and effort to learn, that's how..."
Click to expand...

Yes, it does take a great deal of time and effort to learn intricate rules.
It also helps to to know which question to ask.
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
Yes, asking the right question is essential, but why must we have intricate rules?
Click to expand...
Many of SS's rules were simplified a few years ago. DH & I were born before the cutoff date of the previous rules, giving us more options. However, anyone retiring then or now has the choice of taking considerably lower monthly benefits starting at 62 or far higher benefits by delaying until 70.

SS had been sending me paper statements for many years prior to my reaching 62, so the advantage of delaying benefits was clear to me. As was the importance of having at least 40 quarters of paid (and SS contributing) employment.

Because I didn't know what questions to ask, I researched everything about SS and didn't follow up on the intricacies that didn't apply to us.

The ifs, buts and maybes go on until they can no longer be understood by attorneys, let alone lay people.
Click to expand...
I didn't find that to be true. Excellent books explaining SS options are available in the public library.
 
Typical Couple Will Lose $25,000 of Social Security from WEP/GPO Repeal | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Lawmakers are considering the repeal of Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO). Not only would this repeal unfairly expand windfall benefits by allowing some beneficiaries to effectively double-dip from Social Security and their state or local alternative, but it would also advance Social Security insolvency by roughly half a year and increase the legally required across-the-board cut by about 5 percent. As a result, we estimate WEP/GPO repeal would lead to an additional $25,000 of lifetime benefit cuts for a typical couple retiring in 2033.
​
WEP and GPO were enacted to prevent Social Security from overpaying individuals that collect state and local pensions – which they paid into in lieu of paying Social Security taxes. If repealed, the expanded windfall benefits for these individuals would cost nearly $200 billion over a decade, boost Social Security’s costs by roughly 1 percent, and advance the program’s insolvency date by about half a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).​
​
As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime, with over $8,000 of that additional cut coming in the roughly half a year of advanced insolvency. This would bring the total cut resulting from insolvency to roughly $400,000 over the couple’s lifetime. Additional cuts would be larger for higher income couples and a larger share of income for lower income couples.​
 
The information provided in the query appears to be outdated or inaccurate based on the most recent search results. According to the latest news, the Senate has passed the repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) laws
1
3
.Key points from the recent developments:

  1. The Senate passed the repeal with an overwhelming vote of 76 to 20
    1
    .
  2. The bill, HR82 (Social Security Fairness Act), is now on its way to President Biden for final approval
    1
    .
  3. This marks the end of a 41-year battle to undo these laws, which currently affect nearly 3 million public retirees
    1
    .
  4. Once implemented, the Social Security benefits of current retirees affected by WEP/GPO will be restored to the correct amount going forward
    1
    .
  5. The House had previously passed the bill with a vote of 327-75 on November 12, 2024
    6
    .
The repeal is expected to benefit many public sector retirees, including educators, firefighters, postal workers, and police officers
3
. It will allow these individuals to receive their full retirement benefits without the reductions imposed by WEP and GPO
3
.While the query raises concerns about the potential impact on Social Security's solvency, the search results do not provide information to support or refute these claims in light of the recent legislative developments. It's important to note that the political landscape and legislative priorities can change, and the most recent action by Congress suggests a different approach to addressing these provisions than what was described in the query.
 
Hmm…. Somehow this seems weird.

In a discussion of people who have only their SS check to live on, we are now discussing giving more money to people who were able to avoid paying some SS taxes (resulting in a fatter paycheck) and who also have a pension. Meanwhile people who paid into SS during the work life but have no pension have to struggle with just a SS check to get by on.
 
Last edited:
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
"If we're talking about your current spouse of 15 years receiving $4200/month in SS: if he predeceases you and your SS is $1000, you'll get a total of $4200/month: $1000 against your contributions and $3100 against his. If he's your ex-spouse, you'll get what you're entitled to right now: $2100 a month: $1000 against your contributions and $1100 against his."

Was referring to ex spouse situation not current spouse.

Not even sure of the REASON that age 60 rule was even created.
Another rule that was created in 2012 regarding military pensions also "screws" women - who are usually (but not always) the veteran (I for one AM a female veteran), but a spouse of a veteran.

The newer 2012 rule is that a spouse MUST be married 20 YEARS to a military retiree AND the 20 years of marriage MUST be within the 20 years of service in order for an ex spouse to get a 50/50 split of a retiree's pension benefit.

So: if you are married 19 years of the 20 years your spouse was in the military, you are not entitled to a 50/50 split and must petition in civil court to get ANY division of a military pension after 2012. With SS it is only 10 years and used to be that way for military pensions before 2012.

Example: Married to a military retiree for 27 years. Retiree has in active duty as well as reserve service from 1971-1996; eligible for retirement pay at age 60 (reserve retirement pay begins at age 60; full active service members are eligible for retirement pay and benefits after 20 years regardless of age at retirement). Marriage was from 1985-2012 (27 years). Married 11 years of active/reserve service (more than 50% of service time). Ex spouse won only 11% of ex retirement pay, though they were married MORE than 50% of service time.

Reasonableness would have been 25% of the ex's retirement pay, no, as the marriage began before the 2012 rule and entire 27 years was BEFORE the 2012 20 in 20 rule.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Why should the ex receive 25%? There was a reason for the judge's decision.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top