Spousal Pension NOT optional for some

[bolt]

The post to which I was responding talked about dead guys and destitute widows, so that's why I framed my response the way I did (also because I am male and see it from that point of view). Sure, marriage is a two way street and women also should consider the potential needs of their widowers, although I suspect that, even today, it is mostly women who interrupt their careers to raise children.

But if you insist on being one of those aggrieved men's rights guys, go ahead. It's not a good look, but hey, it's yours.

And, by the way, it's probably Joseph Goebbels to whom you were referring.

My input is rarely well written. I had a secretary for that (juskiddin). I used to do paperwork needed in businesses myself, I was the only one billing & interpreting my own gibberish!

As a example:
I had a best friend from days gone by since we were both 12yrs old.
His marriages left him near destitute from a 3.8Mil apex position he'd attained before wife #1s settlement.

I now call it as I see it, like every politician is a crook! D/R/I all of them!
I'm usually correct, but sometimes wrong also.

Should females be considered in the front lines in the Army, Navy, AirForce, Marines, Police, Fire, EMTs etc....not in my world. Males incur injuries because their female co-workers that were there because of employment equality nonsense issues when the males scoietal conditioning toward females was the governing factor in the injury.(supportingthem)

I reviewed UPS delivery service data. Females retired disabled 4:1.
However laws dictate they be hired for delivery routes.
I operated a number of income operations yrs back. One was a stevadoring outfit, not one female considered applying.
Yes, there are outliers as I'm sure all recognize.
I digress....

Heres one: Consider an Alpha Male in the Gorilla hierarchy.
All the females gravitate to his position of security, shelter, reproduction, affection & nourishment.
IIRC-Humans are what, 99.?% the same base DNA as certain primates.
AFAIK- I might be incorrect. I did not google it

I was not berating anyone.
This post took me close to 3hrs
We've all deficits and strong points.

No doubt your correct Gumby, all I recalled was something "?" Goebbels.

The public would be amazed how China, Greek, Rome, Spain, Britain, & USAs histories seem similar. Not like I'd learned in schools 1-8.
I'd also heard Henry Ford said: If the American public knew about the USAs currency providers (FED) actions they'd ......... fill in the blank or google it I forget the exact terms.

This pension thread got me thinking of another pal whom did right for himself. The current female he was living with thought she should benefit from his 32yrs of .gov service and select that option. He disagreed.
I agreed with him. He got her a pensioned courthouse position w/in 30days. / shrug /

This is a great site, my hats of to you & crew.
I hope alls well.
Good luck & Best wishes......

This has been close to 4 hrs modifying....I hope you get my drift.

 

[rodi]

As for gender and pensions.... My dad was the recipient of my mom's generous county pension. It was a great pension, so good that 10 years in they tried to get employees to buy out (lump sum) and switch to the crappier pension that replaced it. She was savvy enough to say no-way. Dad got 100% survivor when she passed. FWIW - he also chose 100% survivor option on his, less generous, but still nice, corporate pension.

When you partner up for life - that should include planning for a surviving spouse when you make financial choices - and discussing these choices with your spouse....

 

[Jerry1]

We look at all the options and decided that the 100% survivor benefit was the way to go. In our case, the difference was just too small to justify taking a lower percentage for the survivor. DW was fully informed and involved in the decision.

 

[Involuntary Retiree]

I retired under FERS, the Federal Employees Retirement System, in 2014. My DH and I chose the 50% survivor benefit (the most available), which reduced my annuity by 10%. The survivor benefit ensured that, should I predecease him, he would receive half my annuity AND (more importantly) be eligible to continue FEHB health benefits under my record. That peace of mind is totally worth the 10% that is deducted from my annuity. If, on the other hand, he should predecease me (probably likely since he has health issues), I will get a 10% raise upon his death. Of course, I'd much rather keep him around and take a 10% hit forever.

 

[ckelly78z]

Wow to the OP, this is why I am planning now (at 55) of taking the full survivorship when I retire at 62 for my wife. I have had health issues all my life, but am mostly healthy now. She comes from a family of long livers, so I want to make her future completely secure, she has no pension, or retirement plan available.

I am planning on taking the reduced pension amount from a full survivorship, at an early age, so I have ramped up my 401K deductions in recent years to compensate. I believe that we (or just her) will be fine throughout our entire lives.

The difference was only a few hundred $$ a month, which is much easier to make up now through investments, than later through scrambling budget cuts.

 

[athena53]

When you partner up for life - that should include planning for a surviving spouse when you make financial choices - and discussing these choices with your spouse....

I agree. Same of the saddest comments I see on FB "suggested posts" related to retirement are from people trying to live on tiny SS income- mostly women. One I saw today has income of $500/month. I also see this among some of the widows I know- hopefully not such low income levels, but since women typically outlive their husbands, they spend down any meager retirement savings too quickly and when the husband dies the widow is left with depleted savings and only 2/3 of the SS they were getting when he was alive. You wonder what (if) they were thinking. I know many didn't have the means to save much, but some could have.

I have two granddaughters, ages 6 and 4. This year I'm going to give them each 5 crisp $10 bills for Christmas and let their parents help them make decisions on what to give, spend and save. If they buy cheap stuff that falls apart, that's a lesson, too. I plan to talk with them later about what they did with it. I do NOT want them to be passive financial partners.

 

[Rianne]

We have 2 years to decide on pension. I find these numbers confusing:

75% Survivor Annuity - $2763 monthly, if one dies $2072

100% Survivor Annuity - $2626 monthly, one dies $2626

50% Survivor Annuity - $2926 both live, one dies $1457 - $1469 difference for survivor.

This seems like a no brainer. Why would someone work their whole life then chance losing all of the pension b/c of early accidental or health death? This show over $1000/month survivor benefit loss between 100% an 50%.

 

[iloveyoga]

I worked with defined benefit plans for many years and the life only option was by far the most commonly chosen. People just don't understand and picked the largest amount. Some employers did a better job of explaining and those people fared better.

We did the full survivorship option on both of our pensions......

 

[finnski1]

We have 2 years to decide on pension. I find these numbers confusing:

75% Survivor Annuity - $2763 monthly, if one dies $2072

100% Survivor Annuity - $2626 monthly, one dies $2626

50% Survivor Annuity - $2926 both live, one dies $1457 - $1469 difference for survivor.

This seems like a no brainer. Why would someone work their whole life then chance losing all of the pension b/c of early accidental or health death? This show over $1000/month survivor benefit loss between 100% an 50%.

couldn't agree more.

 

[iloveyoga]

We have 2 years to decide on pension. I find these numbers confusing:

75% Survivor Annuity - $2763 monthly, if one dies $2072

100% Survivor Annuity - $2626 monthly, one dies $2626

50% Survivor Annuity - $2926 both live, one dies $1457 - $1469 difference for survivor.

This seems like a no brainer. Why would someone work their whole life then chance losing all of the pension b/c of early accidental or health death? This show over $1000/month survivor benefit loss between 100% an 50%.

Yes!!

 

[skipro33]

We have 2 years to decide on pension. I find these numbers confusing:

75% Survivor Annuity - $2763 monthly, if one dies $2072

100% Survivor Annuity - $2626 monthly, one dies $2626

50% Survivor Annuity - $2926 both live, one dies $1457 - $1469 difference for survivor.

This seems like a no brainer. Why would someone work their whole life then chance losing all of the pension b/c of early accidental or health death? This show over $1000/month survivor benefit loss between 100% an 50%.

You didn't list 0% Survivor. Some people choose this and then buy a life insurance policy to cover the pension loss for less than the cut in pension for the survivor annuity.

 

[Rianne]

You didn't list 0% Survivor. Some people choose this and then buy a life insurance policy to cover the pension loss for less than the cut in pension for the survivor annuity.

Right, 0% survivor is $3277/month. But a life insurance policy at our age? That is interesting, we need to look into that strategy. I have no idea how much a life insurance policy would cost at 62.

 

[skipro33]

Right, 0% survivor is $3277/month. But a life insurance policy at our age? That is interesting, we need to look into that strategy. I have no idea how much a life insurance policy would cost at 62.

Be sure you price a TERM policy. Not whole life.

The difference between 0% and 100% is $651 a month. It would take a policy of $110,000 paid out and invested at 4% to cover $651 a month for 20 years, or, if age 65, to age 85.

A policy for $125,000 under those conditions would cost $137 a month on average and take you out to 25 years. A net gain of $514 a month.

Calculations for the cost of the term policy were gleaned from this site;
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/average-life-insurance-rates/

****EDIT****.
You mentioned you were 62. At age 62, a policy for 25 years for $125,000 would cost $162 a month.
You could buy the policy for 10 years at $53 a month, then at age 72 buy another for 10 years at $154.

 

[Sunset]

One thing that I don’t recall being mentioned is the cost of the survivor benefit can be higher if the surviving spouse is much younger (e.g. > 5 yrs). That could’ve contributed to my cousins situation.

The cost possibly was higher, because the value is higher having a pension that lasts longer.

Unfortunately, people often only see the $$$ signs, and miss out on the value or true cost of things.

 

[brett]

I believe that it is a function of a couples financial situation, their health situation, and what life insurance is in force post retirement.

I do not think that this is a one size fits all situation. Hence the options...often including commuted value.

 

[Sunset]

Be sure you price a TERM policy. Not whole life.

The difference between 0% and 100% is $651 a month. It would take a policy of $110,000 paid out and invested at 4% to cover $651 a month for 20 years, or, if age 65, to age 85.

A policy for $125,000 under those conditions would cost $137 a month on average and take you out to 25 years. A net gain of $514 a month.

Calculations for the cost of the term policy were gleaned from this site;
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/average-life-insurance-rates/

****EDIT****.
You mentioned you were 62. At age 62, a policy for 25 years for $125,000 would cost $162 a month.
You could buy the policy for 10 years at $53 a month, then at age 72 buy another for 10 years at $154.

Which sounds great, unless the life insurance company decides not to pay...

It happened to my friend's Mother, when her husband dropped dead of a heart attack.
He had the policy for approximately 25 yrs, and it was always paid..

Some insurance companies (quite a few) do sometimes refuse to pay out, as it makes the numbers look good, and gets bonuses to the insurance staff. No way to know if your insurance company turns out to be slimely in 10 or 20 yrs.

I worked with an ex- life insurance employee who detailed to me some really terrible stories about denying claims, so employees got bonuses. One stood out as they denied/delayed it for so many years the spouse died !
She quit working there as it was too hard on her.

 

[fosterscik]

I believe that it is a function of a couples financial situation, their health situation, and what life insurance is in force post retirement.

I do not think that this is a one size fits all situation. Hence the options...often including commuted value.

I agree totally. DW has a modest pension that we (I especially) decided to take with 0% death benefit for me. I prefer to have more money now while we are a couple. I will have much less need for money if she dies first. Although we are of equal age, I am statistically more likely to die first and her larger pension will continue. I have no pension so we did not need to make that choice.

 

[CRLLS]

As already stated, a lot depends on a couple's other finances, and the relative size of the pension. It is a very similar situation to decisions made when annuitizing a whole life insurance policy. In our case we (yes, we) decided on single life with no survivor benefits. The gross amount was less than 3% of our SWR. We decided to take the extra now and BTD ) with an extra dinner each month while we can both enjoy it. OK, single life was only about $70 per month difference or so. But it goes to show that the answer is not necessarily a cut a dry answer.

In the OP's case, that couple unfortunately made a horrific choice. At least she agreed to it, unlike some older couples who were not required by law to share in the decision. It doesn't make the situation any easier. It does point out that both people in a marriage should be somewhat knowledgeable in finances and not simply go along with their spouse's choices. Without that basic knowledge, I fear her future will be worse off than it immediately appears to be. He did a disservice to her by not teaching her some of those basics. Knowledge is power, as they say.

 

[ivinsfan]

My input is rarely well written. I had a secretary for that (juskiddin). I used to do paperwork needed in businesses myself, I was the only one billing & interpreting my own gibberish!

As a example:
I had a best friend from days gone by since we were both 12yrs old.
His marriages left him near destitute from a 3.8Mil apex position he'd attained before wife #1s settlement.

I now call it as I see it, like every politician is a crook! D/R/I all of them!
I'm usually correct, but sometimes wrong also.

Should females be considered in the front lines in the Army, Navy, AirForce, Marines, Police, Fire, EMTs etc....not in my world. Males incur injuries because their female co-workers that were there because of employment equality nonsense issues when the males scoietal conditioning toward females was the governing factor in the injury.(supportingthem)

I reviewed UPS delivery service data. Females retired disabled 4:1.
However laws dictate they be hired for delivery routes.
I operated a number of income operations yrs back. One was a stevadoring outfit, not one female considered applying.
Yes, there are outliers as I'm sure all recognize.
I digress....

Heres one: Consider an Alpha Male in the Gorilla hierarchy.
All the females gravitate to his position of security, shelter, reproduction, affection & nourishment.
IIRC-Humans are what, 99.?% the same base DNA as certain primates.
AFAIK- I might be incorrect. I did not google it

I was not berating anyone.
This post took me close to 3hrs
We've all deficits and strong points.

No doubt your correct Gumby, all I recalled was something "?" Goebbels.

The public would be amazed how China, Greek, Rome, Spain, Britain, & USAs histories seem similar. Not like I'd learned in schools 1-8.
I'd also heard Henry Ford said: If the American public knew about the USAs currency providers (FED) actions they'd ......... fill in the blank or google it I forget the exact terms.

This pension thread got me thinking of another pal whom did right for himself. The current female he was living with thought she should benefit from his 32yrs of .gov service and select that option. He disagreed.
I agreed with him. He got her a pensioned courthouse position w/in 30days. / shrug /

This is a great site, my hats of to you & crew.
I hope alls well.
Good luck & Best wishes......

This has been close to 4 hrs modifying....I hope you get my drift.

I'm still confused that you somehow think this post is an improvement over your first post on this thread... I think you wasted 4 hours of your life ..

 

[ivinsfan]

I guess if you want to retire before 58 with limited resources you make some choices, not necessarily good choices but there it is.

You mention they were not savers, so I guess they are both responsible in the end.


However although you say we should "counsel" friends who might be in that position, I quit going there a long time ago. Those discussions fit squarely in the no good deed goes unpunished category.

 

[brett]

I would not 'counsel' friends in a similar position. I would however encourage them to spend a small amount of money and get the advice of a reputable financial consultant.

There have been a few times in our lives when we had to make a decision on a personal issue-legal, tax, accounting, etc. We chose to pay for the appropriate professional advice rather that take a stab in the dark or worse seek out the advice of friends who may or may not be knowledgeable or current. Or even know the right questions to ask.

 

[ivinsfan]

I would not 'counsel' friends in a similar position. I would however encourage them to spend a small amount of money and get the advice of a reputable financial consultant.

There have been a few times in our lives when we had to make a decision on a personal issue-legal, tax, accounting, etc. We chose to pay for the appropriate professional advice rather that take a stab in the dark or worse seek out the advice of friends who may or may not be knowledgeable or current. Or even know the right questions to ask.

What!!! you know you need to come directly to this forum to get answers to those questions.

 

[Bigdawg]

It does point out that both people in a marriage should be somewhat knowledgeable in finances and not simply go along with their spouse's choices. Knowledge is power, as they say.

^This X1000. Never depend on anyone but yourself. DW and I have been together almost 30, married almost 28 and we still have seperate (but joint) checking, saving and MM accounts. Fully transparent. She always says "I'm not your MWR" (that's entertainment committee for you civilian types). We are also not each other's bankers, etc... I have known so many people (typically ladies) who got screwed over. Ridiculous. Never NEED a partner. Want one and have one but never NEED one.

 

[bolt]

I'm still confused that you somehow think this post is an improvement over your first post on this thread... I think you wasted 4 hours of your life ..

I think your correct ivinsfan!
After 3hrs attempting to use the correct grammar & terminologies I was still editing, and at 4hrs I quit!

In staying tangentially OT a friend had this on his Estate Atty Blog today.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/andre-zarre-estate-deli-owner-1916453
(A wealthy Art Dealer leaves his estate to the nearby Deli folk that helped him for years in his waning days on this planet).

Strange things happen to assets often once one passes unless the direction is set in stone. TOD/PODs asset designations over rule anything a multi-noteraized will' says, in every state in the USA, even if the wills less than 6 mo. old. Thats my understanding from recent experience.

Although I can understand the Art Dealer re-directing his assets to those near and dear to his well being, care & end of lifes wishes that helped him in his last years alive.

^^^Bigdawg above makes great points!

Good luck & Best wishes.......

 

[Rianne]

What the heck just happened? I was reading about pensions then all hell broke loose.