SAHM: what do you do to protect yourself financially?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

Because we are sociopaths who hate women and childrem.

Wtf? Nobody is talking about the minor children benefit. But grown women certainly should not be treated like children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I will get half the assets, so $400k from the house, $ 250k from the 401k, and about another $250k from investments, liquid funds, etc. I’m 35 so not too shabby.

2. I will get alimony and child support based on his $350k salary

3. I have Masters degree and worked for 13 years before staying home to have children close together, ie, 4, 2 and newborn. I can get back into the workforce.

4. My children have trust funds and college is fully funded for undergrad and grad school, accruing interest.

5. I don’t need the standard of living I have. Even if I get a job making $100k, with alimony and child support I will be fine.

All of the above is purely to answer the question, I do not plan on divorcing and am happily married.

How are you 35, worked for 13 years before staying home and have a master's degree? Honest question.

You are correct my math may be off by a couple years. I did a quick estimate of graduating HS at 17, 4 years undergrad and 2 years grad school making me 23 when I entered the workforce full time but yes, it may be closer to 11 or 12.

So you became a SAHM in like, recent months?

Lots of people decide to stay home when they have a third kid. I’m guessing that is what she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

Say it with me: SOCIAL. SECURITY. IS. NOT. A. SAVINGS. PROGRAM!!!

Congratulations, you learned something today!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

No one is arguing otherwise. Why do you think the government, and working citizens, should financially find you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

No one is arguing otherwise. Why do you think the government, and working citizens, should financially find you?

The SAHP should be entitled to 50% of the spouse’s benefit earned during the non-working years, and the spouse gets the other 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

No one is arguing otherwise. Why do you think the government, and working citizens, should financially find you?

The SAHP should be entitled to 50% of the spouse’s benefit earned during the non-working years, and the spouse gets the other 50%.

This would be more than fair. But you wouldn’t be asking the rest of us to subsidize your decision to have a SAH spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

All of my husband’s assets should come to me upon his death unless we have previously agreed otherwise. The 401K is no different. However, I do not think my husband’s pension should come to me unless he agreed to split with me at the time of retirement and he was therefore eligible for a lower payout during his life. I really don’t understand the point you were making with your question above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t remember the exact statistics, but the divorce rate is much lower for the typical DCUM demographic. It’s lower if you didn’t have kids before marriage, have above poverty level HHI, and have a higher level of education.

[Anonymous]

Pray...

[Anonymous]

We are more worried about one of us dying, but to answer your question, we fund both of our ROTH’s, he finished paying off my student loan so I would be debt free, we save aggressively, and we have a large life insurance policy on him. A smaller one on me but we need to change that. If I died, it would actually be logistically worse for him.

Other than that, I admit there’s a lot of trust between us. We always clicked, never like to be apart, and after all these years and having a disabled child together neither of us feels anyone new could understand how we feel and think about our child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

No one is arguing otherwise. Why do you think the government, and working citizens, should financially find you?

The SAHP should be entitled to 50% of the spouse’s benefit earned during the non-working years, and the spouse gets the other 50%.

That is a reasonable solution. When working the spouse is working to fund the household. The same should apply in retirement. Hopefully this is the change made to benefit payments in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?

You do not think that your husband's 401K should go to you if he dies? Maybe it should be divided up among his coworkers instead?

Apples and oranges. With a 401k you would receive your husbands contributions and associated growth. What he puts in comes back to him (or his beneficiaries). A SAHM can collect 50% of her husbands benefit while the husband collects 100% of his benefit. The wife never contributed. Why do you think you are entitled to receive a benefit you never contributed toward?

You can contribute to a family in many ways that are not financial.

No one is arguing otherwise. Why do you think the government, and working citizens, should financially find you?

So basically you think that dual income couples are the only married people who deserve to get a full social security benefit. Couples who choose to have a SAH spouse should each take 1/2 of the working spouse's benefit.

What about dual income couples who have a large disparity in income. Maybe he earns 80K and she watches the kids during the day and works retail at night only bring in 15K/year for 20 years. You think that in that example, the husband should get social security based on his 80K income and she should get a benefit based on her 15K income? Because, you know, you work so much harder than she does.....(ha!)