Hi I am Dan - SSA Benefits for Minor Children

[Katsmeow]

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)

 

[M Paquette]

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.

 

[73ss454]

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.

 

[73ss454]

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.

 

[ERD50]

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

 

[MichaelB]

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.

 

[Katsmeow]

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.

 

[ERD50]

... 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

 

[73ss454]

I'll take Michaels suggestion and bow out.

 

[harley]

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.

 

[NYEXPAT]

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).

 

[MichaelB]

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.

 

[wolf]

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.

 

[ziggy29]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[wolf]

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.

Thanks for your input. Again, I agree with you. OP, wanted information.
Not "opinions" on the "right/wrong" of "SS" management.