Anonymous wrote:I have had a long-term (20+) year happy marriage and I would never be as smug and arrogant as some of you in this thread. Frankly, I was really lucky. I could have as easily picked badly. Some of you sound so arrogant and delusional that I wonder just how deluded you are about the rest of your life.

+1 . Though I read it as brittle bravado/defensiveness rather arrogant . I've been lucky too. I've been married long enough to see how people and situations change and things have worked out for us thus far. We've worked at it, but as any complex aspect of life, there's always uncertainty and factors outside your control.

Anonymous wrote:No pre-nup. All money and assets owned jointly. Trust funds for kids. My own earned money in my name only. Strong marriage to a great guy.

You protect yourself by being very well educated, and not having kids with jerks. Because, guess what? Jerks showed you that they were jerks before they married you but you still went ahead and married them and procreated because you were desperate.

if only we all got a crystal ball to know how our spouses were going to change over the 20 or 30 years of marriage. Or know if our spouses are going to get sick or die unexpectedly. or know that they're going to never make any kind of ruinous financial decisions that could kill your savings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Yes, I get that sah is not a luxury for many. This is why I have zero problem with govt breaks and assistance to families that are caring for SN children (and adults). The previous poster who discussed her friend’s disabled child in the same breadth as a SAHM was being disingenuous, I thought.

Y'all like to do a lot of judging based on a lot of nothing. So, do you think my friend who suffers from severe depression and decided to SAH to improve her health should get pennies in retirement? Or what about my other friend who was laid off during maternity leave with her third kid, but didn't have the energy or money to sue and now can't find another job? Or what about my friend who moved for his wife's job and had to give up his career? Or how about my friend who works harder than anyone I know, but still only makes $30k/year and has medical debt, student loans, no family help, etc? Mind your own damn business, people. Worry about our government not taxing corporations, systemic opression, and stop fighting over the crumbs like the small minded folks you are.

+1

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

Read about Katie Beckett and why Ronald Regan passed a law providing these benefits in her name.

Your friend’s very HHI is anomaly. It is important to distinguish that these benefits are for the well-being of the disabled child, despite however you think this unfairly benefits your friend.

Anyhow, ultimately, Reagan was a fiscal conservative and this law was a fiscally sound (as well as compassionate decision) because before this law parents were too often forced to surrender their disabled children to institutions because they could not afford the medical care or cost of caregivers to fill in while they worked to pay for the medical care. Institutionalization provided medical care but was far more costly.

Providing these benefits is the cheaper option for our country and keeps families together.

Being a SN parent is hard enough without this kind of prejudice. As for her husband’s high income, good for them. I hope he is funneling a lot of that money in a SN trust fund.

My husband went back to school and completely changed careers so we could afford for me to be a SAHM, pay for our disabled child’s extra expenses, and save enough for our retirement PLUS fund a SN trust to care for our child who could likely outlive us by 40+ years.

I didn’t opt to be a SAHM and having a SN child for the “perks.” It is something that happened to be and I am thankful for those benefits and anything else that comes our way. My life is a marathon and my worries and grief over my lost dreams and lost career can be soul-crushing.

Anonymous wrote:DH shows me his phone immediately any time I ask. We know each other’s passwords to everything. We make a point of going on regularly, so it’s not odd.

No prenup, all assets owned jointly, huge insurance on him if he passes away, so I have time to get a job. He says he doesn’t need extra insurance on me, but I have offered.

Lots of romance. I married the best guy. I love making him happy, and he does the same. We had a slight dip when the babies came, but I have been intentional about getting our relationship back to baseline.

This seems like a strange thing to lead with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Yes, I get that sah is not a luxury for many. This is why I have zero problem with govt breaks and assistance to families that are caring for SN children (and adults). The previous poster who discussed her friend’s disabled child in the same breadth as a SAHM was being disingenuous, I thought.

Y'all like to do a lot of judging based on a lot of nothing. So, do you think my friend who suffers from severe depression and decided to SAH to improve her health should get pennies in retirement? Or what about my other friend who was laid off during maternity leave with her third kid, but didn't have the energy or money to sue and now can't find another job? Or what about my friend who moved for his wife's job and had to give up his career? Or how about my friend who works harder than anyone I know, but still only makes $30k/year and has medical debt, student loans, no family help, etc? Mind your own damn business, people. Worry about our government not taxing corporations, systemic opression, and stop fighting over the crumbs like the small minded folks you are.

+1

DH shows me his phone immediately any time I ask. We know each other’s passwords to everything. We make a point of going on regularly, so it’s not odd.

No prenup, all assets owned jointly, huge insurance on him if he passes away, so I have time to get a job. He says he doesn’t need extra insurance on me, but I have offered.

Lots of romance. I married the best guy. I love making him happy, and he does the same. We had a slight dip when the babies came, but I have been intentional about getting our relationship back to baseline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Yes, I get that sah is not a luxury for many. This is why I have zero problem with govt breaks and assistance to families that are caring for SN children (and adults). The previous poster who discussed her friend’s disabled child in the same breadth as a SAHM was being disingenuous, I thought.

Y'all like to do a lot of judging based on a lot of nothing. So, do you think my friend who suffers from severe depression and decided to SAH to improve her health should get pennies in retirement? Or what about my other friend who was laid off during maternity leave with her third kid, but didn't have the energy or money to sue and now can't find another job? Or what about my friend who moved for his wife's job and had to give up his career? Or how about my friend who works harder than anyone I know, but still only makes $30k/year and has medical debt, student loans, no family help, etc? Mind your own damn business, people. Worry about our government not taxing corporations, systemic opression, and stop fighting over the crumbs like the small minded folks you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

You can’t just focus on one unfair part and say none of the other unfair parts matter.

And we may be all SOL when it comes time to collect anyway. Which is why we are planning for retirement not needing it. But if SS is still going when I retire, you better believe I’ll collect every penny I can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Yes, I get that sah is not a luxury for many. This is why I have zero problem with govt breaks and assistance to families that are caring for SN children (and adults). The previous poster who discussed her friend’s disabled child in the same breadth as a SAHM was being disingenuous, I thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Of course. And single moms that had SN kids... well they're just screwed. Because they didn't plan well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

SAHP is not always the “luxury” choice. Most of the families I know with a sahp have a child with SN. They made planned to have dual WOHP, but it did not work with what life threw at them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

By the time my husband and I retire, we will both have paid the max rate into SS over 40+ year careers. Not just DH. We did not make the choice for me (or him) to stay home. If we had, I don’t think either of us would consider it unfair for us to bear the financial fall out from that decision - not everyone who contributes to the ss fund. You can bring in other “unfair” parts of the tax and entitlement codes if you wish, but many of us are focused on this one that seems unfair (especially if the SAH parent is a luxury choice).

I agree that people have made life plans based on this benefit and it would be unfair to pull it. But I think the rules should change for people who are 20 years old or younger (or born in 2020 or whatever arbitrary date seems reasonable). Simultaneously, drop the cost of college somehow so people can actually afford to build a career.

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

Whose husbands likely paid the max rate into SS over a 40+ year career, not to mention being in a high tax bracket. We also give benefits to lots of people who don’t pay in, for example “disabled” people (not to be confused with actual disabled people.) We also pay for daycare, food and medical for my friend’s disabled child even though she does not work and her husband makes $1M/year.

Lots of benefits are unfair. Now, if we want to get rid of them all and lower taxes, by all means...

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:

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!)

The SS retirement benefits you receive should be based on what you’ve contributed. What is so hard for you to understand? In your scenario above, if the couple remains married, then their income continues to be shared in retirement. If they divorce, then the woman should receive a fair share of marital assets. In her case with a significant income disparity, a fair share may be 65% of marital assets to support her in retirement.

O.k. if you limit the woman's social security benefit to her own low income then does that mean that she qualifies for low income senior citizen benefits. Does that mean that her income can be taxed at a lower rate than her husband's rather than taxing their combined income at a higher bracket?

Maybe if she qualifies for low income senior housing he can move in with her and take advantage of the reduced rate?