Join AARP
Join for Just $16 A Year
- Discounts on travel and everyday savings
- Subscription to AARP The Magazine
- Free membership for your spouse or partner
Members can save up to 80% on gift certificates from more than 15,000 restaurants nationwide.
Members can get exclusive online access to hundreds of free printable grocery coupons from leading brands.
Welcome to the AARP Discussion Board. Here you can talk with peers about current events ranging from Social Security to caring for your parents to the latest on health care reform. It is also the perfect place to exchange healthy eating recipes and job hunting tips.
These forums are for you to engage and have fun meeting new people. Just remember the community code: Be nice!
|
Re: Spouse Benefits
posted at May 18, 2012 7:34 PM EDT
|
|
Re: Spouse Benefits
posted at May 19, 2012 10:58 AM EDT
|
Posts: 1923
First: November 27, 2011 Last: May 18, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Spouse Benefits: Hello Everyone. I am a 75 yr. old widow. When anyone says you can collect your spouse's benefits after 10 yrs. marriage, they are correct - EXCEPT - that if you worked for a local, state or Federal government and did not pay into SS yourself, and, of course, you have retirement benefits, you can only collect a very small portion of your spouse's SS. I worked for an agency in the Commonwealth of MA. My husband's SS would be around $1,800 - 2,000 per mo. I recieve only $285. This nice little package is with the complements of President Reagan. In my office alone, we had more than 150 people. 95 per cent of them did not know of Reagan's little suprise. Every time I get a raise from the Comm., SS deducts, dollar for dollar from what I receive. Think About It. Posted by dearcat Sounds right to me . . . . there is lots of logic to why this is the way. Reagan only gave the option of government workers going into the SS system. The computations of benefits were established later and change too based on dates, amounts and status. SSA -Government Pension Offset Basically, it is the same type reasoning that governs a married couple who both paid into the SS program throughout their lifetime. When one dies, the other does NOT collect both benefits - the remaining living spouse must decide which benefit to get - their own or the deceased spouse. So would you rather give up your Comm. Pension and draw off of that spousal benefit? I think I know your answer! |
|
Re: Spouse Benefits
posted at May 20, 2012 8:57 AM EDT
|
Posts: 12532
First: February 29, 2008 Last: May 17, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Spouse Benefits: Hello Everyone. I am a 75 yr. old widow. When anyone says you can collect your spouse's benefits after 10 yrs. marriage, they are correct - EXCEPT - that if you worked for a local, state or Federal government and did not pay into SS yourself, and, of course, you have retirement benefits, you can only collect a very small portion of your spouse's SS. I worked for an agency in the Commonwealth of MA. My husband's SS would be around $1,800 - 2,000 per mo. I recieve only $285. This nice little package is with the complements of President Reagan. In my office alone, we had more than 150 people. 95 per cent of them did not know of Reagan's little suprise. Every time I get a raise from the Comm., SS deducts, dollar for dollar from what I receive. Think About It. Posted by dearcat {The fact that you eliminated is the part in Social Security that Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill demonstrated in 1983 , however, that bipartisan action can happen in swift and surprising terms on the thorniest and most insoluble of issues as Reagan had to deal with a large Democratic majority in the House. } "Reagan had a record of scorning Social Security as an involuntary, quasi-socialistic example of government running amok. In a nationally televised 1964 speech for GOP candidate Barry Goldwater, he argued that Social Security should become a "voluntary" program. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/02/bipartisan-reagan-oneill-social-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-doneDuring his 1976 White House run, he declared that Americans—as long as they showed that "provisions" had been made "for their...non-earning years"—should be able to opt out of Social Security. Reagan's opposition to the capstone of the New Deal produced bitter fruit in his first year in office. As the Social Security fiscal outlook darkened, Reagan's Health and Human Services Secretary announced that the administration wanted to reduce Social Security benefits for people who had retired before they turned 65. Republicans and Democrats alike reacted to the White House plan with a combination of disdain and derision. Reagan's plan was overwhelmingly repudiated. The Senate voted 96 to none against while a large bipartisan majority in the House opposed it as well. What happened next would have been hard for anybody to predict at that time. The White House agreed to establish a bipartisan commission to look into how to cope with the system's long-term challenges and extend the solvency of the trust fund. Reagan appointed future Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and O'Neill appointed some of his own members to the Commission. It offered a compromise that has had lasting effects on Social Security politics and policies. Some of the proposals were less than ideal; one that was ultimately enacted into law raised the regressive payroll tax, which hit working- and middle-class Americans harder than wealthier citizens. Nonetheless, the 1983 agreement did succeed in extending the trust fund's solvency for a couple of generations by raising the retirement age to 67 from 65 (to be phased in by 2027); imposing a six-month delay in the cost-of-living adjustment; and requiring government employees to pay into Social Security for the first time." |