SAHM: what do you do to protect yourself financially?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

The Primary's SS is not reduced. They are not taking any money away from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

How old are you? You sound like my DD.

Ironically, it is definitely not outside the realm of possibility that her chronic illness at some point will leave her unable to work and being able to get half her DH's social security should he die would be a real help.

Stuff happens. Would you prefer disabled spouses become a public charge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

How old are you? You sound like my DD.

Ironically, it is definitely not outside the realm of possibility that her chronic illness at some point will leave her unable to work and being able to get half her DH's social security should he die would be a real help.

Stuff happens. Would you prefer disabled spouses become a public charge?

Do some research before responding to what you don’t understand. Your daughter would collect 50% of the spouses SS while the spouse is alive, not when they are dead. So spouse collects 100% of their SS and the non-working spouse can collect 50% of the spouse’s SS at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

We benefit from the unpaid labor of women generally. This is not unique to SAHMs.

I agree with PP that this is not a good use of tax benefits, and it should be limited to those who paid in, except possibly for minor children.

[Anonymous]

No prenup.

He gives me money for the full years worth contribution to an IRA.

He deposits $500/mo into my checking account to use for whatever I wish. I save all of it.

I had fairly decent assets for a late 20 year old at the time we got married and those have remained in my name.

He bought me a car and house. The car is solely in my name, the house is joint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Presumably, the SAH spouse enabled the working spouse to earn more money over the lifetime of their marriage. As a legally married couple they have paid their taxes over the years. And most likely the working spouse has earned well above the minimum social security earnings necessary to qualify for the maximum social security benefit - maybe double, triple or even quadruple the minimum earnings needed to qualify for the maximum benefit. Yet, instead of getting two maximum benefits, they, as a couple only get 1.5. If the working spouse dies the non-working spouse will be left with only 1/2 of his benefit.

Had the husband and wife both worked, they could have both earned less money, paid less in taxes and still qualified for two maximum benefits.

In my own case, I worked before marriage and I qualify for either my own social security benefit OR half my spouse's, whichever is greatest. Most SAHs that I know have, in fact, paid into social security, they have just done it through their own work before kids and through their spouse's enhanced income due to having a SAH spouse.

No one gets married, quits their job and SAH for 10+ years because they are getting a fabulous deal on social security. They absolutely have earned the right to a retirement income though, even if it is half of the social security check that their working spouse gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Presumably, the SAH spouse enabled the working spouse to earn more money over the lifetime of their marriage. As a legally married couple they have paid their taxes over the years. And most likely the working spouse has earned well above the minimum social security earnings necessary to qualify for the maximum social security benefit - maybe double, triple or even quadruple the minimum earnings needed to qualify for the maximum benefit. Yet, instead of getting two maximum benefits, they, as a couple only get 1.5. If the working spouse dies the non-working spouse will be left with only 1/2 of his benefit.

Had the husband and wife both worked, they could have both earned less money, paid less in taxes and still qualified for two maximum benefits.

In my own case, I worked before marriage and I qualify for either my own social security benefit OR half my spouse's, whichever is greatest. Most SAHs that I know have, in fact, paid into social security, they have just done it through their own work before kids and through their spouse's enhanced income due to having a SAH spouse.

No one gets married, quits their job and SAH for 10+ years because they are getting a fabulous deal on social security. They absolutely have earned the right to a retirement income though, even if it is half of the social security check that their working spouse gets.

Is your first statement something that is known? Do workers with a stay at home spouse on average have a higher income than those with two working partners? Because there are many of us 2 parent working families that both earn well above the min earnings required for max benefit. But we can each only draw 1x the max benefit.

I don’t think we should allow sahps to pull from as (unless of course it’s based on their own earning pre and/or post kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Presumably, the SAH spouse enabled the working spouse to earn more money over the lifetime of their marriage. As a legally married couple they have paid their taxes over the years. And most likely the working spouse has earned well above the minimum social security earnings necessary to qualify for the maximum social security benefit - maybe double, triple or even quadruple the minimum earnings needed to qualify for the maximum benefit. Yet, instead of getting two maximum benefits, they, as a couple only get 1.5. If the working spouse dies the non-working spouse will be left with only 1/2 of his benefit.

Had the husband and wife both worked, they could have both earned less money, paid less in taxes and still qualified for two maximum benefits.

In my own case, I worked before marriage and I qualify for either my own social security benefit OR half my spouse's, whichever is greatest. Most SAHs that I know have, in fact, paid into social security, they have just done it through their own work before kids and through their spouse's enhanced income due to having a SAH spouse.

No one gets married, quits their job and SAH for 10+ years because they are getting a fabulous deal on social security. They absolutely have earned the right to a retirement income though, even if it is half of the social security check that their working spouse gets.

Is your first statement something that is known? Do workers with a stay at home spouse on average have a higher income than those with two working partners? Because there are many of us 2 parent working families that both earn well above the min earnings required for max benefit. But we can each only draw 1x the max benefit.

I don’t think we should allow sahps to pull from as (unless of course it’s based on their own earning pre and/or post kids).

I don’t get this either. It is absolutely not factual that having a stay at home parent increases household income.

Earn your own money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No prenup.

He gives me money for the full years worth contribution to an IRA.

He deposits $500/mo into my checking account to use for whatever I wish. I save all of it.

I had fairly decent assets for a late 20 year old at the time we got married and those have remained in my name.

He bought me a car and house. The car is solely in my name, the house is joint.

So you’re basically his dependent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Presumably, the SAH spouse enabled the working spouse to earn more money over the lifetime of their marriage. As a legally married couple they have paid their taxes over the years. And most likely the working spouse has earned well above the minimum social security earnings necessary to qualify for the maximum social security benefit - maybe double, triple or even quadruple the minimum earnings needed to qualify for the maximum benefit. Yet, instead of getting two maximum benefits, they, as a couple only get 1.5. If the working spouse dies the non-working spouse will be left with only 1/2 of his benefit.

Had the husband and wife both worked, they could have both earned less money, paid less in taxes and still qualified for two maximum benefits.

In my own case, I worked before marriage and I qualify for either my own social security benefit OR half my spouse's, whichever is greatest. Most SAHs that I know have, in fact, paid into social security, they have just done it through their own work before kids and through their spouse's enhanced income due to having a SAH spouse.

No one gets married, quits their job and SAH for 10+ years because they are getting a fabulous deal on social security. They absolutely have earned the right to a retirement income though, even if it is half of the social security check that their working spouse gets.

Is your first statement something that is known? Do workers with a stay at home spouse on average have a higher income than those with two working partners? Because there are many of us 2 parent working families that both earn well above the min earnings required for max benefit. But we can each only draw 1x the max benefit.

I don’t think we should allow sahps to pull from as (unless of course it’s based on their own earning pre and/or post kids).

Do you think that a long time married dual earning couple - with one a high earner 275K, the other a "parent tracked" lower earner 30K should be restricted to just their own SS earnings? Maybe the lower earning spouse would do better taking 1/2 of the working spouse's SS rather than taking their own earned benefit.

[Anonymous]

*Maybe the lower earning spouse would do better taking 1/2 of the higher earning spouse's earned benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No prenup.

He gives me money for the full years worth contribution to an IRA.

He deposits $500/mo into my checking account to use for whatever I wish. I save all of it.

I had fairly decent assets for a late 20 year old at the time we got married and those have remained in my name.

He bought me a car and house. The car is solely in my name, the house is joint.

All the things he “gives” you are marital assets that he has a claim to if you divorce regardless of whose name they are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can worry about a lot of things, but, thankfully, I do not have to protect myself or my kids from my husband!

Still, it is educational to hear about all of these cautionary tales.

+1.

Even if your marriage is good, you may have daughters/nieces who may need to understand some of these dynamics. No one plans on getting a divorce but divorce rate is at least 40%. Women are typically most vulnerable because of child raising responsibilities they take on. I’m really reading this thread seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.