Social Security -- ex-spousal survivor benefits?

[Texas Proud]

Does the ex has a wife?

Yes... married to my sis for 11 years, to new wife going on 35... similar to my sis who was married for 35 to second DH...

 

[joeea]

Why are you so sure this has nothing to do with the state of social security. It’s basically just like any budget, you take in less, you pay out more, you will not meet your obligations. The best way to shore up SS is to tighten those obligations.

Shoring up all these "loopholes" isn't going to change the fact that the SS Trust Fund will run out of money and after that SS will only be able to pay out what it takes in.

The "loopholes" are just noise in a system that needs a real fix and distract from the central issues.

 

[Fedup]

Shoring up all these "loopholes" isn't going to change the fact that the SS Trust Fund will run out of money and after that SS will only be able to pay out what it takes in.

The "loopholes" are just noise in a system that needs a real fix and distract from the central issues.

They maybe noise to you, but it’s obvious that the government is closing them for a reason.
I googled and the NYT wrote it saved the government .04 for the next 75 years, the file and suspend, plus the restricted application. Elimination of the restricted applicationsaved SS 9.5 Billion. Smaller savings on the file and suspend.

 

[gayl]

I look at my two married kids, who contribute to SS and have spouses who do too, and think the early boomers may be the last generation to have a lot of single income and thus shared SS situations. My kids and their spouses will be collecting on their own records and if they were to divorce, they would still be collecting on their own records.

[emoji106]

 

[joeea]

They maybe noise to you, but it’s obvious that the government is closing them for a reason.

So far, the government has only closed the "unintended" aggressive claiming loopholes.

We'll see what happens with any other aspects of the system that some believe to be loopholes.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

One of my friends just got a big SS bump when here ex died. It is a weird law as they had been divorced for decades and she had hardly seen him since the divorce.

 

[gayl]

One of my friends just got a big SS bump when here ex died. It is a weird law as they had been divorced for decades and she had hardly seen him since the divorce.

It's smart to utilize all loopholes out there (I am starting to claim restricted benefits on mine) but I still say the widow/widowers bump up loophole should be closed for exes

 

[Fedup]

One of my friends just got a big SS bump when here ex died. It is a weird law as they had been divorced for decades and she had hardly seen him since the divorce.

Did she have to refile or it’s gone up automatically.

 

[Independent]

So if I'm single, I get $X for the rest of my life.
But if I'm married, and my wife had minimal earnings, I'd get about $Y (perhaps a lot less than $X). Even if my wife predeceases me, I'd still get only $Y for the rest of my life.

Yup, that's rather wild and crazy.

Let's look at X and Y. Suppose a one earner couple has an average indexed lifetime wage of $98,400. That leads to a PIA of approximately $32,000 (annually).

If the spouses are the same age and both start at NRA, they get a combined $48,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $32,000 after the first death.

Now look at two single people each earning $49,200. Each would have a PIA of about $22,000. So, they would get a combined $44,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $22,000 after the first death.

I'm having trouble figuring out why the married couple should have the extra income.

Yes, I can see that married people don't want the same benefits that single people get.* So, my idea is "wild and crazy" in the sense that it is a political nonstarter. But, I'm not a politician, so I can say politically unpopular things.


*Tthat's a benefit cut even for the simple case where people stay married. When we get into survivors benefits on ex's earnings, the extra benefit gets even bigger.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Did she have to refile or it’s gone up automatically.

She had to go to the SS office with some additional documents regarding the marriage.

 

[bada bing]

Let's look at X and Y. Suppose a one earner couple has an average indexed lifetime wage of $98,400. That leads to a PIA of approximately $32,000 (annually).

If the spouses are the same age and both start at NRA, they get a combined $48,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $32,000 after the first death.

Now look at two single people each earning $49,200. Each would have a PIA of about $22,000. So, they would get a combined $44,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $22,000 after the first death.

I'm having trouble figuring out why the married couple should have the extra income.

Yes, I can see that married people don't want the same benefits that single people get.* So, my idea is "wild and crazy" in the sense that it is a political nonstarter. But, I'm not a politician, so I can say politically unpopular things.


*Tthat's a benefit cut even for the simple case where people stay married. When we get into survivors benefits on ex's earnings, the extra benefit gets even bigger.

I have to say your "wild and crazy" proposal is one of the more interesting that I've seen and seems to me to be very explorable. On first glance, I like it a lot.

I have been married twice, but neither went 10 years. The USGov will never have to pay one dime in additional spousal support on my 35 year max cap earnings record, even though I was married for a total of 17 years. I can assure you I lost a couple big chunks of flesh in QDRO's from my private retirement accounts when divorced. I do not have any problem with the QDROs, it makes accounting sense. "Wild-n-crazy" appears to use similar logic to what already is long standing case law for treatment of private pensions.

It seems bizarre that an ex-spouse could claim benefits for earnings made in years when they were not married to the earner. As an example, what if my 1st ex had made it to 10 years married to me rather than 9 that actually happened? She would get the benefit of an earnings record that she mostly had nothing to do with. Or in my case, was an active impediment to. Even stranger is that this largess isn't paid by me, but from the public at large. From a fund that is going bankrupt.

 

[gwraigty]

Let's look at X and Y. Suppose a one earner couple has an average indexed lifetime wage of $98,400. That leads to a PIA of approximately $32,000 (annually).

If the spouses are the same age and both start at NRA, they get a combined $48,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $32,000 after the first death.

Now look at two single people each earning $49,200. Each would have a PIA of about $22,000. So, they would get a combined $44,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $22,000 after the first death.

I'm having trouble figuring out why the married couple should have the extra income.

Yes, I can see that married people don't want the same benefits that single people get.* So, my idea is "wild and crazy" in the sense that it is a political nonstarter. But, I'm not a politician, so I can say politically unpopular things.


*Tthat's a benefit cut even for the simple case where people stay married. When we get into survivors benefits on ex's earnings, the extra benefit gets even bigger.

Here's an interesting list of the various benefits that have been added/eliminated and when:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/benefittypes.html

My uneducated guess is that spousal benefits were added at a time (1939) when very few married women worked outside the home. Now, of course, that isn't the case, so it seems unfair, as in your example. I'm part of a married household that stands to get more because of the spousal benefit. I can understand why some are against this though.

 

[ivinsfan]

Let's look at X and Y. Suppose a one earner couple has an average indexed lifetime wage of $98,400. That leads to a PIA of approximately $32,000 (annually).

If the spouses are the same age and both start at NRA, they get a combined $48,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $32,000 after the first death.

Now look at two single people each earning $49,200. Each would have a PIA of about $22,000. So, they would get a combined $44,000 while they are both alive, and either would get $22,000 after the first death.

I'm having trouble figuring out why the married couple should have the extra income.

Yes, I can see that married people don't want the same benefits that single people get.* So, my idea is "wild and crazy" in the sense that it is a political nonstarter. But, I'm not a politician, so I can say politically unpopular things.


*Tthat's a benefit cut even for the simple case where people stay married. When we get into survivors benefits on ex's earnings, the extra benefit gets even bigger.

It's part of the system and has nothing to do with the "wishes" of married people. In this day and age with everyone being called a "misogynist" and the entire world supposedly against women, this is an early example of according value to contributions women made out of the workplace.

In fact I suspect it wasn't really about the value of women but not wanting widows to end up public charges or losing their homes. Nevertheless it applies to both women and men which is all about equality between the sexes right?

 

[Independent]

Here's an interesting list of the various benefits that have been added/eliminated and when:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/benefittypes.html

My uneducated guess is that spousal benefits were added at a time (1939) when very few married women worked outside the home. Now, of course, that isn't the case, so it seems unfair, as in your example. I'm part of a married household that stands to get more because of the spousal benefit. I can understand why some are against this though.

Thanks for the link.

I believe I understand the impetus for a spousal benefit. It is the "social adequacy" side of SS benefits.

A single income couple needs a higher replacement rate to provide an "adequate" retirement income than a single worker with the same wage history. The couple has two people to support instead of one. The spousal benefit provides that extra, and neatly disappears on the first death.

But, SS has another route to social adequacy -- the skewed benefit formula. Lower income workers always get higher replacement rates than higher income workers due to the formula design.

I can see how the spousal benefit looked slick and easy in 1939. I can also see that years of adjustments/enhancements for two worker families, divorces, and remarriages have led to a bunch of rules that no longer look slick and easy.

It seems to me that we've reached the point where it is simpler (and "fairer") to just split the earnings records and rely on the skewed benefit formula to provide the "adequate" benefit.