Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-17-2012, 12:18 PM   #21
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
The discussion is about SS payments to dependent minors of retired people. Once again, I was showing one way a retired person could have a minor dependent. There are others. For example, adaption of an orphan.

Not changing the subject at all.
Plus, let's compare the costs of giving an elderly parent/guardian a little extra cash to raise the children to the cost in social services needed to keep them in an orphanage, or foster care, or other "temporary" guardianship arrangements had grandparents or another elderly person/couple not stepped up to assume the role of parent or legal guardian. Or in juvie, for that matter....

And then, let's add to the that the expected outcomes for the child in each case, in terms of staying out of trouble, finishing school and becoming a net tax *payer* instead of a net tax *consumer* in their working-age adult lives.

Personally, looked at that way, I think giving the grandparents or the adoptive elderly household a little extra cash is a bargain in comparison. One can always find or construct theoretical examples of "abusing the system," as I'm sure we can here. But often, the costs of stopping or policing the abuse cost a lot more than the abuse itself.
__________________

__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-17-2012, 01:32 PM   #22
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by danhart View Post
I will be 62 in August 2012. I have two minor children ages 12 and 9. My wife is 52 and self employed. Can I file for benefits at 62 and will my minor children begin receiving benefits also. I do not need the money now, so should I suspend my benefit after filing for my minor children? And will they continue to receive the benefits after I suspend mind.
Also, can my wife file for benefits after I do even though she is not 62? What happens to her benefits if I suspend mine.

Dan
Katsmeow reply is correct. Been there myself. Best to schedule an appointment with SS. They are very helpful.
__________________

__________________
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 01:54 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
The OP isn't the grand parent of the children. I think there is a difference between a grand parent who is raising kids for one reason or another. Things happen in life and sometimes family has to step in to lend a hand. But people who make babies at an older age should have to take care of them IMHO. The kids were not brought about by anything other than someone wanting to make babies, so step up to the plate and do your duty.
__________________
Work is something you do to get enough $ so you don't have to....Me.
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 01:58 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
If grandparents adapt their grandchildren because the parents suffer a misfortune or tragedy, society could show a little compassion and help them deal with the unplanned financial burden.
I'm with you 100% on this but that's not the OP's case. They decided to make babies so they should take care of them.
__________________
Work is something you do to get enough $ so you don't have to....Me.
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 03:20 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
Philosophically I don't see much difference between providing spousal benefits (marrying is also a choice) and benefits for children........
That's a good point.

It does seem that spousal benefits are a relic of earlier times and social mores. Their elimination should be considered as a fix for SS's funding issues. We need to update our thinking about entitlements and drag our citizens into modern times.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 06:11 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73ss454 View Post
But people who make babies at an older age should have to take care of them IMHO. The kids were not brought about by anything other than someone wanting to make babies, so step up to the plate and do your duty.

I tried to be really polite in my response to your original comment. It is certainly fine to believe that SS benefits should not be paid to children of retired parents. Just as it would be fine to believe that spousal benefits should not exist or that the retirement age should be raised, etc. Obviously SS only has so much money and I guess if my kids weren't receiving benefits due to my DH's retirement or if no one received spousal benefits then, for example, your personal SS benefits might be higher and you might prefer that. And there is a case to be made that it would be better policy to do that. (There is also a case to be made the other way...) And that is a public policy debate that can be made. But, it can be made without casting aspersions on people who receive the benefits that you disfavor.

To claim that my husband and I aren't doing "our duty" because our children receive spousal benefits (FWIW, we didn't create two of our 3 children as we adopted them as older children but that most certainly was our choice) is just going a bit far and is, frankly, a little rude.

We have any number of people in this forum who have spouses who never worked or whose earnings would call for a SS benefit lower than the spousal benefit. Should we be posting that all those people made a choice to marry and should "do their duty" and support their spouse and refuse SS benefits? Do you claim that all of them aren't doing their duty because they dare to ask for spousal benefits? Getting married is most certainly just as much a choice as having children....(sometimes, more of a choice actually)
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:38 PM   #27
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73ss454
But people who make babies at an older age should have to take care of them IMHO. The kids were not brought about by anything other than someone wanting to make babies, so step up to the plate and do your duty.
Absolutely correct. Folks planning on retirement should take care to not start any babies starting 21 years and 9 months prior to their projected retirement date. Since we all know that birth control, contraception, or indeed, even having sex without the intent of starting a baby is sinful behavior, it behooves us to all promise to abstain from sex starting almost 22 years prior to our planned retirement date. It's really the only moral thing to do. ;-)

But seriously, dude. Stuff happens. Ma and Pa planned to have this all covered, but then Pa had that horrible accident down at the mill. Or Ma invested all the savings with that nice Bernie fellow she met at the club. Social Security pays a little, but it isn't really enough to cover the basic costs of raising a kidlet.

If you're outraged and want to do something, lobby your Congresscritters. Maybe they can add a Moral Turpitude Board to the SS application process to determine if the applicant is worthy.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:41 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
I'm sorry that you feel that way but I stand by what I said. Maybe I just don't get it but that is how I feel.

Let's say my religion allows me to have as many spouses as I want. Do you think it would be OK for all of them to get SS bennies because they are married to me?

Some things don't make sense to me and providing bennies to children and under age of 62 spouses of someone who decides to retire is one of them.
__________________
Work is something you do to get enough $ so you don't have to....Me.
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:43 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Absolutely correct. Folks planning on retirement should take care to not start any babies starting 21 years and 9 months prior to their projected retirement date. Since we all know that birth control, contraception, or indeed, even having sex without the intent of starting a baby is sinful behavior, it behooves us to all promise to abstain from sex starting almost 22 years prior to our planned retirement date. It's really the only moral thing to do. ;-)

But seriously, dude. Stuff happens. Ma and Pa planned to have this all covered, but then Pa had that horrible accident down at the mill. Or Ma invested all the savings with that nice Bernie fellow she met at the club. Social Security pays a little, but it isn't really enough to cover the basic costs of raising a kidlet.

If you're outraged and want to do something, lobby your Congresscritters. Maybe they can add a Moral Turpitude Board to the SS application process to determine if the applicant is worthy.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a good time if you want to. Just do it on your dime.
__________________
Work is something you do to get enough $ so you don't have to....Me.
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 08:45 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
Should we be posting that all those people made a choice to marry and should "do their duty" and support their spouse and refuse SS benefits?
I think you are mixing apples-oranges. The comparison was families with children, just different timing. Not with and w/o children, or with and w/o spouses. Those are separate (and likely valid, but separate) arguments. How about this:

What if the spousal benefit only applied for the first 18 years of marriage? So someone at 62 marries and spouse gets benefits for 18 years. But someone celebrating their 20th anniversary at 62 would get nothing.

I think that's closer to the situation that some are describing. And it doesn't sound 'fair' does it? And if anyone involved needs a safety net, that is also separate. But in the context of this thread, the OP did say 'I do not need the money now'.

FWIW (if the OP is still listening), I for one have no issue with you collecting whatever benefits you legally qualify for. We each need to look out for #1. But some of us may feel that law is not written properly - that is also a separate issue. If you qualify and it works to your advantage, go for it.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 08:48 PM   #31
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,445
We do not know the circumstances of the OP, only the ages of the family members. There is a presumption of unfairness that is not supported by fact, so to brand this as irresponsible is rude, and also out of place. People that want to discuss SS policy should do so in the politics forum.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 09:27 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73ss454 View Post
I'm sorry that you feel that way but I stand by what I said. Maybe I just don't get it but that is how I feel.
I am not at all questioning your right to be against the SS rules providing benefits to minor children of retired workers. However, I think your post lacked civility to those of us in the forum who have children who receive SS benefits.

I am a bit taken aback, frankly, by your rather coldly stating that you stand by what you said with regard to what seems to be a way of stating your opinion that seems to be unnecessarily insulting to those of us who have children entitled to SS benefits. Frankly, I resent the implication -- actually closer to an outright statement -- that by accepting SS benefits for our children that my husband and I are somehow not doing our duty with regard to our children. Surely, you can see that I might find that offensive.

That is, it is one thing to take the position that minor children of retired workers should not receive benefits (clearly an opinion that you are entitled to hold and one that I can certainly understand and might even agree with) but it is something else to imply that parents of those children are somehow shirking their duty to their children by accepting such benefits. I think my husband and I are indeed meeting our duty to our children and, frankly, if we failed to obtain the SS benefits to which they are entitled by law I could argue that such failure would be shirking our duty.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 10:01 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
... People that want to discuss SS policy should do so in the politics forum.
I'm confused. Wasn't the OP question about SS policy? Should it have been started there, or in "FIRE and Money", or this intro thread?

It seems that his policy question was answered in the third post, by Leonidas. If by 'discuss SS policy' you mean discussing changes to the policy, or the 'fairness' of the policy, then maybe the thread should just be split off after post #3 (or maybe post #10?) and moved?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 10:04 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
73ss454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaLa Land
Posts: 4,378
I'll take Michaels suggestion and bow out.
__________________
Work is something you do to get enough $ so you don't have to....Me.
73ss454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 10:29 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,426
Y'all do realize you've spent about 3 posts addressing the OP, and 31 trying to figure out why the gov't did something? If you're that bored, I've got enough examples of gov't decision making to keep you busy all through ER and well past death. Let me know if you want a list.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 09:39 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
NYEXPAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miraflores,Peru
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by danhart View Post
I will be 62 in August 2012. I have two minor children ages 12 and 9. My wife is 52 and self employed. Can I file for benefits at 62 and will my minor children begin receiving benefits also. I do not need the money now, so should I suspend my benefit after filing for my minor children? And will they continue to receive the benefits after I suspend mind.
Also, can my wife file for benefits after I do even though she is not 62? What happens to her benefits if I suspend mine.

Dan
Dan, I hope you will take others advice and call your SS office and report back here. I am in a similar situation and would like to suspend benefits (if possible).
__________________
NYEXPAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 09:55 AM   #37
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I'm confused. Wasn't the OP question about SS policy? Should it have been started there, or in "FIRE and Money", or this intro thread?

It seems that his policy question was answered in the third post, by Leonidas. If by 'discuss SS policy' you mean discussing changes to the policy, or the 'fairness' of the policy, then maybe the thread should just be split off after post #3 (or maybe post #10?) and moved?

-ERD50
Sorry about your confusion. The OP is not asking to discuss policy, just wants to know how the rules apply to his situation. The thread is find where it is. If you wish to discuss SS policy and how if applies to or affects early retirement you can do so in the Money or Politics forums.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 10:39 PM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I am not at all questioning your right to be against the SS rules providing benefits to minor children of retired workers. However, I think your post lacked civility to those of us in the forum who have children who receive SS benefits.

I am a bit taken aback, frankly, by your rather coldly stating that you stand by what you said with regard to what seems to be a way of stating your opinion that seems to be unnecessarily insulting to those of us who have children entitled to SS benefits. Frankly, I resent the implication -- actually closer to an outright statement -- that by accepting SS benefits for our children that my husband and I are somehow not doing our duty with regard to our children. Surely, you can see that I might find that offensive.

That is, it is one thing to take the position that minor children of retired workers should not receive benefits (clearly an opinion that you are entitled to hold and one that I can certainly understand and might even agree with) but it is something else to imply that parents of those children are somehow shirking their duty to their children by accepting such benefits. I think my husband and I are indeed meeting our duty to our children and, frankly, if we failed to obtain the SS benefits to which they are entitled by law I could argue that such failure would be shirking our duty.
I agree with you. Very similar family circumstance. Somtimes until you walk in some one elses shoes, you cannot imagine what can happen.
__________________
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 07:11 AM   #39
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Sorry about your confusion. The OP is not asking to discuss policy, just wants to know how the rules apply to his situation. The thread is find where it is. If you wish to discuss SS policy and how if applies to or affects early retirement you can do so in the Money or Politics forums.
That's how I saw it it as well. Or to put it another way, the OP wanted *factual* Information about what the policy is, and it turned into *opinions* about what the policy should be.

That is where the difference lies.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 11:14 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Sorry about your confusion. The OP is not asking to discuss policy, just wants to know how the rules apply to his situation. The thread is find where it is. If you wish to discuss SS policy and how if applies to or affects early retirement you can do so in the Money or Politics forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
That's how I saw it it as well. Or to put it another way, the OP wanted *factual* Information about what the policy is, and it turned into *opinions* about what the policy should be.

That is where the difference lies.

OK, I understand the distinction between 'policy' and 'rules' when those words are added. I guess in general usage, that distinction between 'policy' and 'rules' is often not made. As in "It is our store policy to require a receipt for any refund or warranty claims." They say 'policy' but it sounds like a 'rule' to me?

I guess what added to my confusion is that the same people making this distinction made posts #10 and #21 in this thread (not the 'Politics' forum), which look to me to be policy opinion comments rather than rule application comments (per this distinction).

But I get it now. Yep, I get it.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Government's New Plan for Retirees Includes Pink Slime, Horse Meat, & Horse Hockey mickeyd FIRE and Money 63 04-04-2012 02:43 PM
Paying for the "payroll tax" cut veremchuka FIRE Related Public Policy 124 03-20-2012 03:33 PM
has anyone ever taken a job for less? tulak Young Dreamers 49 03-19-2012 07:17 AM
MPT -"Investment Strategies for the 21st Century" seraphim Stock Picking and Market Strategy 10 03-16-2012 10:49 AM
Maybe someone can check this for me oldtrig FIRE and Money 45 03-13-2012 06:19 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.