• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Social Security experts

artringwald

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,737
Reaction score
3,679
Points
448
Location
Oakdale, MN
Resorts Owned
DRI: The Point at Poipu, 3 deeded weeks, 1 of which is in The Club.
What I don't like is that women (or men) who never worked can collect half their working spouses SS! What the?! I thought you had to put into the system to get it out. I can understand if the working spouse dies and then the non-working spouse collects on that benefit. But, for ex. - My sister in law- who never worked because my brother did very well for himself- is going to collect half his SS (which is the max since he is a high earner (and believe me he deserves every penny of it))- almost equal to my Full SS- and I worked for 40+ years full-time day in and day out(highest I ever earned was $50,000 and I am still working at 58 years old)-while I was getting up at 4am and rushing off to day care with my son, stressed out, exhausted, hating every minute of it, - she got to stay in her pj's and wave to her daughter as she got on the school bus!!! More power to her (she's a lovely person), but should she be able to collect SS benefits? I would think not!

Somehow this does not seem right for workers/taxpayers to have to pay for...but I guess the government thinks so....

Now some people will argue that these non-working spouses sacrificed to stay home while others were out working on their careers, etc. Well- that does not fly with me- careers for most average people are just hell-hole, drudgery jobs and working women and men have to do it all- work BOTH on their jobs AND to raise their families and take care of their home, multitasking and juggling everything to fit in around their jobs. I sure would have liked to just stay home and work on the household chores and take care of my son rather then work and do everything else around it. So, should we have all just stayed home? Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

You probably wouldn't be happy to know that three of Johnny Carson's marriages lasted over 10 years, so all three were able to claim 50% of his SS benefits.
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
You probably wouldn't be happy to know that three of Johnny Carson's marriages lasted over 10 years, so all three were able to claim 50% of his SS benefits.


LOL! Insanity!!!:wall:
 

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
I know. Life is about choices-I agree. FYI- I had to work to have a home- period- and eat and live a middle class lifestyle- how terrible am I? But why do I have to pay for other people's choices not to work? People like my sister in law who sacrificed zero- zilch- and have it better than people like me and my husband and I think that is great. She married right financially speaking. Good for her and others like her. But why do I and other taxpayers have to pay for her to have social security? That;s my beef.

Why should my elderly mother be destitute and living under a bridge simply because women didn't work back then? Why isn't it ok for part of what Dad paid in support her? SOMEONE in the couple paid in, that's the point, and marriage is a social contract. Social Security.

That surviving spouse is part of why SS came to be, too many widows and orphans homeless. I do not wish to revert to that.

While you say "she sacrificed nothing", I do not agree with you.
 

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,777
Reaction score
5,531
Points
848
... Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

Show me a case where people are collecting SS and never worked. It's not possible. There are credits required for collecting, and you only get credits by working.
 

geoand

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
289
Points
443
Location
Anacortes, WA
Conan,

So ballpark, she waits until 66 2/3 she gets $1325, she does it at 62 so gets 33.54% or $888.
She however would have collected $49,728 by the time 66 2/3 gets here, correct ?
So its simple math. The correct answer can only be determined by when she dies to see if she gains or loses, right :) ?

Would I have to declare and suspend for her to get the $888 I assume ?

I am sure that you have already figured this out. Just in case tho. If she can wait until the full retirement age - great. However, if she doesn't need the money, then why not take it early anyway and invest it????
 

geoand

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
289
Points
443
Location
Anacortes, WA
This is based on my experience

I worked for SSA for 29 years and retired over 15 years ago. I was a tugger before I retired and whenever I saw a post about ssa benefits, the information posted by the knowledgeable people was almost always wrong and wrong in a big way. I tried to give good advice and was shot down by some expert and so I gave up trying to correct the misinformation.

Now that I have been out for the 15 years, I would never give any advice other than to tell you that you need to get the information from the people that administer the program. Go to SSA office and ask the questions. Do not assume anything. Give them all the details. More than one trip to the office for advice is good because you will never know if info was correct until you hear it from another SSA employee. The other thing to keep in mind is that you may provide info the second time that you didn't give the first time. Again, as a former employee of the agency, I recall many times when someone came in to get info and then came in again to confirm info but gave more info the second time which changed the answer I had to give. SSA will not advise you on the situation, they can only provide you with options.
 

csxjohn

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
134
Points
348
Location
North East Ohio
Resorts Owned
Tropic Shores Resort, Bluegreen points
I know. Life is about choices-I agree. FYI- I had to work to have a home- period- and eat and live a middle class lifestyle- how terrible am I? But why do I have to pay for other people's choices not to work? People like my sister in law who sacrificed zero- zilch- and have it better than people like me and my husband and I think that is great. She married right financially speaking. Good for her and others like her. But why do I and other taxpayers have to pay for her to have social security? That;s my beef.

I wasn't trying to imply that you made a wrong choice, just that is was your choice. I would not have wanted to live the lifestyle that one income would have provided us so we both worked also.

I was just pointing out that begrudging others what they are entitled to is an exercise in futility in this case.
 

Patri

Tug Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
6,727
Reaction score
4,005
Points
648
I think it is more an issue she is jealous of her SIL. There are more issues here than just SS.
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
The issue is that when Social Security program was first devised, women generally stayed at home and people were dying younger. The formula took into account spouses (wives) who were expected to stay home, the non-working spouses who could end up divorced and needed something to live on and survivor and dependent benefits.

Now that Social Security is going broke and society has changed quite a bit, a few things ought to be revamped (401K, different formula, greater contributions etc.) and also who gets paid:
- Should it really be paying for 50% for a non-working or lower income earning spouse?
- Should it really be paying a divorcee since there is something called marital settlement agreement and for a marriage that lasts 10 years or more, alimony.

I believe survivor and dependent benefits are still needed as the living require something to live on if/when the person getting SS passes away.

My 2 cents.
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
Why should my elderly mother be destitute and living under a bridge simply because women didn't work back then? Why isn't it ok for part of what Dad paid in support her? SOMEONE in the couple paid in, that's the point, and marriage is a social contract. Social Security.

That surviving spouse is part of why SS came to be, too many widows and orphans homeless. I do not wish to revert to that.

While you say "she sacrificed nothing", I do not agree with you.

What the heck are you talking about? I think that widows should definitely get their husbands SS check. I never said they shouldn't. You didn't read what I wrote correctly. I said if the (used to work) spouse is alive and collecting , the (non ever-working) spouse shouldn't get a check also. If the working spouse passes, the surviving spouse who never worked should still definitely get the check.

Another thing that is wrong that occurs is that when one spouse dies- if the other spouse worked also and paid into the system- he/she can only get one check- whichever is bigger.
 
Last edited:

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
Show me a case where people are collecting SS and never worked. It's not possible. There are credits required for collecting, and you only get credits by working.

An I writing in gibberish or something? Right- that is my point! If you don't work and didn't pay into the system you shouldn't be able to collect.

Yet, a non-working spouse with no credits of her/his own can collect half of their working spouse's SS!

I get arguments about this- that the non working-never worked spouse deserves SS, but I don't see it that way. I do, however, think a widow or widower should get their spouse's check.
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
I wasn't trying to imply that you made a wrong choice, just that is was your choice. I would not have wanted to live the lifestyle that one income would have provided us so we both worked also.

I was just pointing out that begrudging others what they are entitled to is an exercise in futility in this case.


Not begrudging. I;m happy. I just don't think this is right. That's all.
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
I think it is more an issue she is jealous of her SIL. There are more issues here than just SS.

You don't know me- not fair to judge. Just sayin'. Love my brother and sister in law! I only used her for an example because it is one that I know of. I am sure there are many examples out there- like the Johnny Carson wives one! LOL!

Sure- I am envious of people who don't have to work- who isn't. Not jealous though-but I think this SS issue is one that should be looked at because you are supposed to have work credits to collect. They keep talking about solvency issues with SS and wanting to keep raising the full retirement age, etc. well- why not look at situations like this where money is being wasted on those who didn't pay into it and don't need it?
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
The issue is that when Social Security program was first devised, women generally stayed at home and people were dying younger. The formula took into account spouses (wives) who were expected to stay home, the non-working spouses who could end up divorced and needed something to live on and survivor and dependent benefits.

Now that Social Security is going broke and society has changed quite a bit, a few things ought to be revamped (401K, different formula, greater contributions etc.) and also who gets paid:
- Should it really be paying for 50% for a non-working or lower income earning spouse?
- Should it really be paying a divorcee since there is something called marital settlement agreement and for a marriage that lasts 10 years or more, alimony.

I believe survivor and dependent benefits are still needed as the living require something to live on if/when the person getting SS passes away.

My 2 cents.

Thank you. Agreed. Exactly the point I was trying to make until everyone started judging me. I guess I didn't explain myself correctly. Hopefully they will understand your post better than mine.:)
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,138
Reaction score
595
Points
498
Location
Connecticut

jlf58

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
572
Reaction score
11
Points
478
As mentioned, I was considering paying down the mortgage with it which would make my house paid off by the time I retired

I am sure that you have already figured this out. Just in case tho. If she can wait until the full retirement age - great. However, if she doesn't need the money, then why not take it early anyway and invest it????
 

MuranoJo

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
4,946
Reaction score
186
Points
448
Location
Idaho
The issue is that when Social Security program was first devised, women generally stayed at home and people were dying younger. The formula took into account spouses (wives) who were expected to stay home, the non-working spouses who could end up divorced and needed something to live on and survivor and dependent benefits.

Now that Social Security is going broke and society has changed quite a bit, a few things ought to be revamped (401K, different formula, greater contributions etc.) and also who gets paid:
- Should it really be paying for 50% for a non-working or lower income earning spouse?
- Should it really be paying a divorcee since there is something called marital settlement agreement and for a marriage that lasts 10 years or more, alimony.

I believe survivor and dependent benefits are still needed as the living require something to live on if/when the person getting SS passes away.

My 2 cents.

Have to agree with this.
Now don't get me started on disability benefits. Yes, they are needed, but there's a lot of abuse of the system.

We know someone who's collecting disability benefits because of a 'bad back.' Yet this guy is out golfing all the time. The other day he was complaining because he hurt his back golfing.
 

WinniWoman

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
10,762
Reaction score
7,057
Points
749
Location
The Weirs, New Hampshire
Resorts Owned
Innseason Pollard Brook
Have to agree with this.
Now don't get me started on disability benefits. Yes, they are needed, but there's a lot of abuse of the system.

We know someone who's collecting disability benefits because of a 'bad back.' Yet this guy is out golfing all the time. The other day he was complaining because he hurt his back golfing.

I personally know several people in this category, some who have been on it from young ages, and it really gets me. Meanwhile, I have private disability insurance for the past 30+ years, arthritis in my upper back, herniated disk, bouts of fibromyalgia, and have to drive all day- getting in and out of a car and carrying things,-but I, at 58 years old, would never think of putting in a claim unless I literally couldn't get out of bed!
 

normab

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
302
Points
443
Location
Florida
Not begrudging. I;m happy. I just don't think this is right. That's all.

I hear ya. Live is not fair and sometimes things aren't right, but it's not possible to please all the people all the time, and there are probably times you have come out ahead of others.

I read a book a long time ago that said don't compare yourself with others, you will always find some things where you fall short. I try to remember that always.

Happy New Year.
 

radmoo

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
915
Reaction score
1
Points
228
Location
Melrose, MA
For what it's worth I think the earnings ceiling should be eliminated and perhaps "taxed" on sliding scale. Once you reach the threshold, I think it is around $116,00 right now, you should still be contributing. Additionally, there ought to be a tax credit or incentive to people who do not need to collect. Perhaps some of the more affluent citizens would forego their SS $ for a chance to reduce their tax obligation . . just sayin'
 

SMHarman

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
4,171
Reaction score
86
Points
183
Location
NY NY
For what it's worth I think the earnings ceiling should be eliminated and perhaps "taxed" on sliding scale. Once you reach the threshold, I think it is around $116,00 right now, you should still be contributing. Additionally, there ought to be a tax credit or incentive to people who do not need to collect. Perhaps some of the more affluent citizens would forego their SS $ for a chance to reduce their tax obligation . . just sayin'
Would that mean I also receive more. Are you proposing removing the payout cap also?
After all that would be money going from current income to future savings, maybe needing to be redirected from 401k savings.
 
Last edited:

rapmarks

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,628
Reaction score
4,764
Points
649
For what it's worth I think the earnings ceiling should be eliminated and perhaps "taxed" on sliding scale. Once you reach the threshold, I think it is around $116,00 right now, you should still be contributing. Additionally, there ought to be a tax credit or incentive to people who do not need to collect. Perhaps some of the more affluent citizens would forego their SS $ for a chance to reduce their tax obligation . . just sayin'

agree with this
 

Blues

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,482
Reaction score
496
Points
443
Location
Monterey County CA
Would that mean I also receive more. Are you proposing removing the payout cap also?
After all that would be money going from current income to future savings, maybe needing to be redirected from 401k savings.

Actually, there is no legislated cap to SS payout. The much-touted cap is merely a mathematical artifact of applying the formula for PIA (primary insurance amount) for a theoretical person who earned (and payed in for) the maximum amount per year. So yes, if the ceiling is removed on the amount that is taxed, it would also serve to remove the payout cap, absent any other legislative change. I've tried to point that out to whoever would listen.

Imagine the uproar if a person who earned and paid FICA for millions of dollars per year then retired and received SS payments of hundreds of thousands. There would indeed be an uproar; but it's only fair. And if they then tried to legislate a cap, it would only serve to highlight the inherent unfairness that results.

ETA - Removing the taxation cap would only alleviate the funding problem for a couple of decades. It would then boomerang when those people start to retire and claim huge payouts.

-Bob
 
Last edited:
Top