isisdave
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,861
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Location
- Evansville IN
- Resorts Owned
- Marriott Waiohai
Remember too, that if the average SS benefit is about $1400, 50% of that is just enough to starve a little more slowly. We're not talking about a bonanza for anyone.
Since so much has changed in 70 years, there are probably ways that some of the spouse and survivor rules could be improved. In the "Johnny Carson" case , how about if the three wives get a fraction based on the number of years each was married to him, but the taxpayers are only on the hook for ONE 100% charge?
Another thing to consider is that when women usually didn't work, a couple could live on one income. As more and more women began to work, the "standard of living" increased, and so did things like housing, as the increased availability of money pushed up the prices unreasonably. Now think of the couple scraping by on his SSA of maybe 1500 and her 50% or 750. When one dies, the other will have to get by on just the 1500. That's pretty hard, unless you move in with the kids.
Since so much has changed in 70 years, there are probably ways that some of the spouse and survivor rules could be improved. In the "Johnny Carson" case , how about if the three wives get a fraction based on the number of years each was married to him, but the taxpayers are only on the hook for ONE 100% charge?
Another thing to consider is that when women usually didn't work, a couple could live on one income. As more and more women began to work, the "standard of living" increased, and so did things like housing, as the increased availability of money pushed up the prices unreasonably. Now think of the couple scraping by on his SSA of maybe 1500 and her 50% or 750. When one dies, the other will have to get by on just the 1500. That's pretty hard, unless you move in with the kids.
