The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

We need to extend social security to Stay at Home Daughters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that with the acknowledgement that people are living longer and healthier lives (and thus have a longer ability to work), hopefully we can also acknowledge that parents (usually still women) who take time off to care for family members still have a long time that they can productively work as well. Society has definitely progressed but there are still too many barriers to parents (again, usually women) reentering the workforce. It is inconsistent to say women don't add value to their former workplace and also that women have tons of time to work until they reach 70, get back to work! (PP isn't saying this, I'm just pointing out the contradiction between these ideas that exist in society). Also, I would agree anyone taking significant time away from a career would need an onboarding process, whether starting at a lower level and working back up. I'm not arguing people return to the exact same job at the exact same rate, but there are still too many people (and sectors) who penalize any parent for taking time off. Thank you for considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of stay at homes moms worked. My wife is a stay at home mom but she worked on the books 16-37 and paid 21 years of SS.

Even my 16 year old daughter paid SS on her summer job.

Then they can collect on their own record and taking away benefits for a non-contributing spouse wouldn’t affect your family. Sounds like your wife paid into the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

+1

If the end result of all the medical and technological advancements we’ve made as a society is that people can now work even longer then I am not interested. I’d rather retire in my 60s and have a good 10-15 year retirement than work until I’m 70 and “enjoy” retirement once dementia hits (and yes I’ve seen with my own parents and many friends’ parents that many major health issues arise in your 70s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

SS would be solvent if the Feds stopped raiding it for other programs. Raising the age is ridiculous argument when they could stop raiding it.

And if you can’t understand the welfare comment then you’re not educated enough to participate in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

PP is an idiot. There won’t be any age change for anyone over the age of 35. Any change has to provide the impacted population ~30 years to adjust their personal savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

You do understand that SAHPs do work, right? They do a lot of work which adds value to society for which they do not receive a paycheck. By giving them an amount equal to 50% of their spouse’s SS benefit, the government is acknowledging, to a certain extent, the unpaid labor of caretakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

You do understand that SAHPs do work, right? They do a lot of work which adds value to society for which they do not receive a paycheck. By giving them an amount equal to 50% of their spouse’s SS benefit, the government is acknowledging, to a certain extent, the unpaid labor of caretakers.

Additionally, this is less of an issue if the spouses stay married, but if they don't, the former SAHP is completely screwed. So, it has real world implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

Then they wouldn’t get the spousal benefit. They’d receive their own benefit.

50% of the spousal benefit is sometimes higher than one’s own benefit, regardless of how long one worked.

This 100%. I worked 10 years, but only 6 after college (fulltime). My average earnings are ~40K because that was 30+ years ago. We are HHI, so my spousal benefit will far exceed what I get myself

Here is the real welfare queen.

Don't need your "welfare". We are doing quite well on our own thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

Then they wouldn’t get the spousal benefit. They’d receive their own benefit.

50% of the spousal benefit is sometimes higher than one’s own benefit, regardless of how long one worked.

And that should stop. You get your own benefit, not more.

What if your spouse dies? Can you collect their benefit or half their benefit or do you now need to live on your own substantially lower benefit?

(And once again, keep in mind that SS is not a savings program, it’s an insurance program to keep the elderly population out of poverty)

Well maybe SS should change over time to become a mandated savings program that you and your employer contribute to equally. Time for people to realize they need to plan for retirement, and that means savings some.

[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:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

PP is an idiot. There won’t be any age change for anyone over the age of 35. Any change has to provide the impacted population ~30 years to adjust their personal savings.

We don't have a 30 year window to adjust the full retirement age and make the program solvent at this point. It is too late for that Congress should have fixed this 10 or 15 years ago. The projected insolvency date is around 2034, so taxes will need to go up and it's likely that the full retirement age will be increased incrementally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

SS would be solvent if the Feds stopped raiding it for other programs. Raising the age is ridiculous argument when they could stop raiding it.

And if you can’t understand the welfare comment then you’re not educated enough to participate in this thread.

Social security hasn’t been raided. It’s just obligation added to the national debt. It’s not actually impacting the availability of benefits.