Medicare is Changing:What's New for Benificiaries?

[VacationForever]

This irritates me as well. My husband and I have always worked full-time. I used to earn more than him, then we earned the same and now he earns more than me, but our SS checks will not be much different from each other's when we retire.

Now, for example, a woman (just using a "woman" for an example for all those who are politically correct) who- let's say- her husband makes a lot of money that she can stay home. Let's say she never worked or worked very little if at all.

Well- she can collect half of her husband's SS when she reaches the eligible age- a check that - because her husband was a very high earner- will be equal to my full check! And then, of course, her husband gets his well-deserved max SS check.

So I busted my butt leaving the house every morning to go to work. This woman stayed home and I am getting the same SS check as she is!

This makes me nuts! Certainly, if her husband passes, she should be entitled to his SS check. But- how is she eligible for a SS check while her husband is alive and collecting his own if she never worked?

Because when SS was first conceived, most spouses did not work and no one thought about "fairness" and affordability of a system paying an extra 50% for a non-working, aka non-SS contribution, spouse. It sounded like a good idea that a couple collects more than a single person, since there are 2 mouths to feed. Times have changed and no one has the political motivation to go back and review the system. Government policies are mostly motivated by politics, unfortunately.

 

[Glynda]

True

I is the law- whether or not the husband was a high earner or not. The stay at home wife can collect half of whatever the working husband's SS is.

That's true. But you were saying it drives you nuts that a woman could stay home because her husband was a high earner and later collect the same as you by collecting half of his while you had to bust your butt and work. The high earner puts more into the system and draws less from it. Of course it depends upon life span and that of spousal withdrawal.

As I said, I was just thinking.

 

[WinniWoman]

Because when SS was first conceived, most spouses did not work and no one thought about "fairness" and affordability of a system paying an extra 50% for a non-working, aka non-SS contribution, spouse. It sounded like a good idea that a couple collects more than a single person, since there are 2 mouths to feed. Times have changed and no one has the political motivation to go back and review the system. Government policies are mostly motivated by politics, unfortunately.

Yeah- well they just had the motivation to eliminate the file and suspend rule.

They keep talking about the insolvency of Social Security- you would think they would look at this as well.

 

[WinniWoman]

That's true. But you were saying it drives you nuts that a woman could stay home because her husband was a high earner and later collect the same as you by collecting half of his while you had to bust your butt and work. The high earner puts more into the system and draws less from it. Of course it depends upon life span and that of spousal withdrawal.

As I said, I was just thinking.

Good input. But-

The high earner's contribution to Social security is capped. At a certain point, the rest of his income is not taxed for Social Security contributions.

 

[Glynda]

True again

Good input. But-

The high earner's contribution to Social security is capped. At a certain point, the rest of his income is not taxed for Social Security contributions.

It is. While one would have to look at the amount an individual paid in to the system over a work life versus what is paid out but I suspect in a high earner's case, it is still a good bit less.

 

[VacationForever]

Yeah- well they just had the motivation to eliminate the file and suspend rule.

They keep talking about the insolvency of Social Security- you would think they would look at this as well.

They scrapped that one in because fewer people are affected. I think there will be a bigger uproar if they eliminate the 50% spousal benefits. Too many people would accuse them of discrininating against women, poor or minority or whatever reason as people want to make everything political. I am tired of how PC everything needs to be in this country anymore, instead of just doing the right thing. Getting off my soap box now...

 

[Conan]

They scrapped that one in because fewer people are affected. I think there will be a bigger uproar if they eliminate the 50% spousal benefits. Too many people would accuse them of discrininating against women, poor or minority or whatever reason as people want to make everything political. I am tired of how PC everything needs to be in this country anymore, instead of just doing the right thing. Getting off my soap box now...

I'm the one complaining about how two earner couples get short-changed, but I don't think it's fair to call it political correctness. (Dare I say this term is getting overused lately?)

As noted above, the 50% benefit for the spouse makes sense on the old family model. The single worker gets a 100% benefit (i.e. whatever his payment record gets him), and if he has a spouse there's a supplemental 50% for her. (And if he dies she steps up to a 100% benefit.)

You can also see how the current rule sounds fair in a glib sort of way - - if the wife works, she gets the better of a 50% spousal benefit or 100% of her own benefit. And if one of them dies, the surviving spouse gets the better of his or her own 100% benefit.

The solution isn't to eliminate the spousal benefit. A reasonable approach is either
1. Give the two earner couples 150% plus at least a portion of the benefit that the second earner paid taxes for, or
2. Aggregate the husband and wife's income under a single taxable wage base ceiling. Currently the social security tax is capped at $118,500 of wages, and it's applied separately to each of them. Funny how we don't combine the two spouse's wages under that number - - we combine their income when we apply income tax to it; we even combine their income after they reach age 65 for purposes of their Medicare premium penalty tax.

Not likely, though, when the long term solvency of the current system is already in question, and income tax rate increases or benefit cuts for the wealthy are pretty much out of the question.

 

[geekette]

This irritates me as well. My husband and I have always worked full-time. I used to earn more than him, then we earned the same and now he earns more than me, but our SS checks will not be much different from each other's when we retire.

Now, for example, a woman (just using a "woman" for an example for all those who are politically correct) who- let's say- her husband makes a lot of money that she can stay home. Let's say she never worked or worked very little if at all.

Well- she can collect half of her husband's SS when she reaches the eligible age- a check that - because her husband was a very high earner- will be equal to my full check! And then, of course, her husband gets his well-deserved max SS check.

So I busted my butt leaving the house every morning to go to work. This woman stayed home and I am getting the same SS check as she is!

This makes me nuts! Certainly, if her husband passes, she should be entitled to his SS check. But- how is she eligible for a SS check while her husband is alive and collecting his own if she never worked?

There is a household limit on SS income.

Also, even tho I do not have kids, I would not be in favor of letting our senior women starve when they are widowed. My mother is a widow who hasn't worked since the 50s. She would starve without dad's ss. Should her low wages at accepted women's work at the time be all the credit she gets?

Raising kids is a huge unpaid job in our country and if done well, more productive citizens are toiling vs taking from society. Clearly it is the women most often with this job, sacrificing career and wages, which impacts her SS. I have no problem with women receiving part of spouse SS. They paid into society in ways other than paid work. Could be her own SS is larger than half of hubs' bennie in many cases. There is a ceiling on the SS payment that hits the 6 figure worker the same as the 8 digit worker.

Life is choice. One can marry into a situation that provides a life of leisure or can raise a football team of kids. Social Security was meant to keep the elderly out of abject poverty. It's not for me to decide who deserves poverty instead.

I also can't see as quitting work, quitting saving, etc., is the answer, and must assume you were being flip. I don't figure SS to be a substantial portion of my retirement funds, it's icing on the cake, a very modest subsidy. Quitting everything else to try to angle for max SS seems counterproductive to me. I have always run my projections with the expectation that SS will not be there for me, so it's not going to be an issue if there is less of what I was never counting on.

 

[VacationForever]

There is a household limit on SS income.

Also, even tho I do not have kids, I would not be in favor of letting our senior women starve when they are widowed. My mother is a widow who hasn't worked since the 50s. She would starve without dad's ss. Should her low wages at accepted women's work at the time be all the credit she gets?

Raising kids is a huge unpaid job in our country and if done well, more productive citizens are toiling vs taking from society. Clearly it is the women most often with this job, sacrificing career and wages, which impacts her SS. I have no problem with women receiving part of spouse SS. They paid into society in ways other than paid work. Could be her own SS is larger than half of hubs' bennie in many cases. There is a ceiling on the SS payment that hits the 6 figure worker the same as the 8 digit worker.

Life is choice. One can marry into a situation that provides a life of leisure or can raise a football team of kids.

No one is saying one should not get spousal widow/widower death benefit. It's the extra 50% that is drawn on 1 contribution that is disputed. They are not drawing on "a part of spouse's SS", it is an extra 50% that is paid by SS office/taxpayer. As broke as SS is, one would think that is the first that needs to be fixed.

No one asks a woman to have children. It is a personal choice and if so, the family needs to ensure that they can afford to bring up the children. Society / taxpayers should not be responsible for one's choice. Popping out children is easy, keeping them fed, educated, and out of trouble is harder. There are data that show that well educated wealthier couples tend to have fewer children, and vice versa. It is not to say that well educated wealthier couples don't have large families, just not as frequently as less well-to-do couples.

 

[geekette]

No one is saying one should not get spousal widow/widower death benefit. It's the extra 50% that is drawn on 1 contribution that is disputed. They are not drawing on "a part of spouse's SS", it is an extra 50% that is paid by SS office/taxpayer. As broke as SS is, one would think that is the first that needs to be fixed.

No one asks a woman to have children. It is a personal choice and if so, the family needs to ensure that they can afford to bring up the children. Society / taxpayers should not be responsible for one's choice. Popping out children is easy, keeping them fed, educated, and out of trouble is harder. There are data that show that well educated wealthier couples tend to have fewer children, and vice versa. It is not to say that well educated wealthier couples don't have large families, just not as frequently as less well-to-do couples.

I don't disagree, as I am childless by choice, but those who do have children are propagating the species, growing new productive citizens to pay in to SS.
We need kids else none of us will be getting any old age payments.

I will point out that the higher up the economic scale, the more choices, including paying for birth control and/or termination services, education, etc. I am being careful to dance around forbidden topics, but let's just say that motherhood is not always a choice that a woman gets to turn down and that there is no 100% effective birth control. None.

If society should not be responsible for the choices of others, then we will need to extinguish the elderly that run up our med bills or those born chronically ill that do the same. Probably will have to execute all the disabled and uneducated, too, along with anyone convicted of a crime, including those born poor since we shouldn't have to feed them or educate them since they exist because of someone else's choice.

I'm being flip, but either we have a society or we don't. If you want to pick and choose as to who is worthy, that's not really a society, it's a club.

Mothers will always be behind the 8 ball financially, but I would not be in favor of shutting them out of social security as they do their part to shore up the society part and I therefore believe they should share in the security part.

I don't think I should have to support Walmart not paying their staff enough, but here I am, contributing to food stamps and Medicaid and local tax base so that the Walton family can enjoy ridiculously large profits. Where is my choice in that?

 

[VacationForever]

I don't disagree, as I am childless by choice, but those who do have children are propagating the species, growing new productive citizens to pay in to SS.
We need kids else none of us will be getting any old age payments.

I will point out that the higher up the economic scale, the more choices, including paying for birth control and/or termination services, education, etc. I am being careful to dance around forbidden topics, but let's just say that motherhood is not always a choice that a woman gets to turn down and that there is no 100% effective birth control. None.

If society should not be responsible for the choices of others, then we will need to extinguish the elderly that run up our med bills or those born chronically ill that do the same. Probably will have to execute all the disabled and uneducated, too, along with anyone convicted of a crime, including those born poor since we shouldn't have to feed them or educate them since they exist because of someone else's choice.

I'm being flip, but either we have a society or we don't. If you want to pick and choose as to who is worthy, that's not really a society, it's a club.

Mothers will always be behind the 8 ball financially, but I would not be in favor of shutting them out of social security as they do their part to shore up the society part and I therefore believe they should share in the security part.

I don't think I should have to support Walmart not paying their staff enough, but here I am, contributing to food stamps and Medicaid and local tax base so that the Walton family can enjoy ridiculously large profits. Where is my choice in that?

What you are missing in this argument is choice. A woman can keep her legs closed and I promise you, she won't get pregnant. Being disabled is not by choice. We as a society will help and pay to those who did not choose to be in that situation, be it disabled, elderly or young.

Starting and owning a business is no guarantee that it will be profitable. Corporate America is not the bad guys - they provide employment to people. If we don't want to be employees, we can try starting our own business. 99% of businesses fold - not because they are run by bad people but because it is extremely hard to be an employer. A company may be profitable one day and be in the red the next. Walmart does not owe its employees more than what they are paid. It is a free market. If employees have the skills and can make more elsewhere, they are gone. Walmart, Sears, Macys, fill in the blanks, can all be bankrupt tomorrow. Employers are not the bad guys. Everyday that I had been employed, I had been thankful, even while working for 5 years in a company that paid the worst in the industry that I was in. I ultimately left for a better paying job - but that company gave me an opportunity to develop and gain experience.

 

[WinniWoman]

There is a household limit on SS income.

Also, even tho I do not have kids, I would not be in favor of letting our senior women starve when they are widowed. My mother is a widow who hasn't worked since the 50s. She would starve without dad's ss. Should her low wages at accepted women's work at the time be all the credit she gets?

Raising kids is a huge unpaid job in our country and if done well, more productive citizens are toiling vs taking from society. Clearly it is the women most often with this job, sacrificing career and wages, which impacts her SS. I have no problem with women receiving part of spouse SS. They paid into society in ways other than paid work. Could be her own SS is larger than half of hubs' bennie in many cases. There is a ceiling on the SS payment that hits the 6 figure worker the same as the 8 digit worker.

Life is choice. One can marry into a situation that provides a life of leisure or can raise a football team of kids. Social Security was meant to keep the elderly out of abject poverty. It's not for me to decide who deserves poverty instead.

I also can't see as quitting work, quitting saving, etc., is the answer, and must assume you were being flip. I don't figure SS to be a substantial portion of my retirement funds, it's icing on the cake, a very modest subsidy. Quitting everything else to try to angle for max SS seems counterproductive to me. I have always run my projections with the expectation that SS will not be there for me, so it's not going to be an issue if there is less of what I was never counting on.

Well- I don't even know where to start but here goes. First off, (if you read my initial post), I am definitely not against a NON-WORKING woman (or man) getting widow (or widower) benefits at all as their spouse earned it - but I am against them being able to collect 50% of their spouse's SS check while the spouse is alive and collecting their own while the stay at home never worked. That is my beef. More than likely in this scenario- if one spouse was able to stay home the other spouse must have earned a good living and more than likely has savings and doesn't even need the SS check. Of course, all situations are different so I can't totally generalize.

And you are right, Life is a choice, so if you choose to stay home and not work you should not be expecting to collect 50% of your spouse's SS check while that spouse is alive and collecting his.

You can also question why if one member of a dual working couple passes, one SS check goes away. The other working spouse doesn't get to keep their spouse's SS check that he or she earned. Only can collect the bigger of the two checks. But someone who has never worked can collect their working spouse's SS check. Again, I have no issue with that but it doesn't seem right that a working spouse loses a SS check when her spouse dies. After all- that spouse earned his/hers. But- now I am getting off the main point....

Not for nothing, but most women (and/or men) who work have TWO jobs- raising a family, taking care of a home- AND their job or career. No choice in most cases. Why should someone who didn't have to do the second job- aka called employment- collect SS? I just don't get it. The people who really have it hard are the ones who CAN'T stay home and have to juggle everything in little time. Talk about stress! The people who stay home have it made! Are you kidding me? Ask any parent who works- especially moms! Juggling a job and family is a lot harder than staying home. I have nothing against people who stay home-I think it is great!- I was always envious- and it is work for sure-but I can't stand it when someone says the people who stay home to care for their family and home have it hard. Those that have to do both have it a lot harder.

As for depending on SS checks- most of us are not super high earners so no matter how frugal and how much we save, we still need the SS checks to make it through our old age.

 

[John Cummings]

As for depending on SS checks- most of us are not super high earners so no matter how frugal and how much we save, we still need the SS checks to make it through our old age.

I agree with you. We are definitely not poor and SS is less than 50% of our retirement income but we receive $40,000 in SS which is not trivial. It definitely enhances our retirement. Another thing is that SS is not taxed in California which also saves. BTW, my wife receives the spousal benefit as she was a homemaker and a very good one

 

[geekette]

What you are missing in this argument is choice. A woman can keep her legs closed and I promise you, she won't get pregnant. Being disabled is not by choice. We as a society will help and pay to those who did not choose to be in that situation, be it disabled, elderly or young.

Starting and owning a business is no guarantee that it will be profitable. Corporate America is not the bad guys - they provide employment to people. If we don't want to be employees, we can try starting our own business. 99% of businesses fold - not because they are run by bad people but because it is extremely hard to be an employer. A company may be profitable one day and be in the red the next. Walmart does not owe its employees more than what they are paid. It is a free market. If employees have the skills and can make more elsewhere, they are gone. Walmart, Sears, Macys, fill in the blanks, can all be bankrupt tomorrow. Employers are not the bad guys. Everyday that I had been employed, I had been thankful, even while working for 5 years in a company that paid the worst in the industry that I was in. I ultimately left for a better paying job - but that company gave me an opportunity to develop and gain experience.

I guess you've never heard of rape. I can think of no woman that has chosen to be raped, and certainly not the adolescent girls. In some states, the woman has less rights than the blob of tissue inside her, including the state I live in. Where are those choices? What will the men do when the fear of pregnancy negates consensual sex and prostitution remains illegal? Your promises don't hold water.

I am all for free market, and I choose to not spend my dollars toward enriching the Walton family. I am loyal towards businesses that care about their employees and avoid the Dollar At Any Human Cost outfits. Unchecked greed is a pox on society where the elderly and ill become more likely to be warehoused before disposal.

Some individuals and entities intend to make society better by their presence and others want only to extract from society to enrich themselves. I know which side I'm on.

 

[geekette]

You can also question why if one member of a dual working couple passes, one SS check goes away. The other working spouse doesn't get to keep their spouse's SS check that he or she earned. Only can collect the bigger of the two checks. But someone who has never worked can collect their working spouse's SS check. Again, I have no issue with that but it doesn't seem right that a working spouse loses a SS check when her spouse dies. After all- that spouse earned his/hers. But- now I am getting off the main point....

This one is easy: one check per person. Why would it be any different?

Why would A Worker's Check continue on past their death, except to spouse or child? The work is done, the person is gone, the "entitlement contract" ends at death. It is a special lucky loophole that allows a surviving spouse to keep the higher of the checks. Ditto on pensions, why do they ever cover more than the worker? Plenty don't.

Also, it only takes 10 years of work to qualify for SS (40 quarters). While my mother hasn't worked since the 50s, she did her time to qualify. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that all stay at home parents NEVER worked. I can't say as for anyone else, but I began W2 wages at age 15 with cash jobs before that (unreported).

Please note, nowhere nohow did I imply that raising kids wasn't work. Agree on the 2 jobs scenario. One of those jobs is lifelong. My sister is one of those SuperMoms.