Women and Bush's social security plan

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There's a very interesting article in this month's AARP Bulletin about "Why women could lose big if Social Security goes private." Essentially, the private accounts reduces the Defined Benefits for women under the "Survivor and disability insurance" now provided by Social Security. With private accounts, there is no Defined Benefit. Under the current progressive formula for lower earners, it pays higher benefits to women with low lifetime earnings. Under private accounts, it would depend on how much a worker pays in. Current benefits include annual cost of living adjustments, while private accounts has no guarantees. A married woman after ten years is eligible for social security benefits, but private accounts holders do not provide this protection for women.

I just wonder how many women are pushing for Bush's Private Accounts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,610 • Replies: 33

No top replies

Wasn't one of ideas of PA that we could say who we wanted our money to go to if we died? Meaning I kick the bucket and I am able to leave my payments to whom ever I choose?

0 Replies

True, except any money willed to your spouse doesn't guarantee there would be enough funds a) for the rest of their life, and b) doesn't keep up with inflation. If that is what your spouse wants, I'm not here to argue the point.

0 Replies

HAARP obviously hasn't learned the meaning of v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-y.

Or... o-p-t-i-o-n-a-l.

Maybe they should invest in a good dictionary.

0 Replies

Yes, I wonder how many wives are going to "voluntarily" give up their social security benefits as outlined by the AARP article?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I wonder how many wives are going to "voluntarily" give up their social security benefits as outlined by the AARP article?

Here's the point, it isn't their SS to give up. It is their husbands to do with as he pleases not the wife's. I'm not saying they don't matter but it is also something that should be discussed together before joining in the voluntary program.

0 Replies

They can't discuss something they don't understand.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

They can't discuss something they don't understand.

Do you understand it? If you do what makes you think others won't? I understand it just fine that is why I am in favor of it.

0 Replies

Good for you. NOw go to sleep.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good for you. NOw go to sleep.

Nothing else to say.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, I wonder how many wives are going to "voluntarily" give up their social security benefits as outlined by the AARP article?

Here's the point, it isn't their SS to give up. It is their husbands to do with as he pleases not the wife's. I'm not saying they don't matter but it is also something that should be discussed together before joining in the voluntary program.

I am wondering if you realize how contradictory your post is. First you said, "It is their husbands to do with as he pleases not the wife's." Then you appeared to realize how that would play out so you added, "something that should be discussed together"

I just don't understand the desire to take something which is guaranteed into something which is not.

I understand that in later years we are going to start having real SS crises. However, I don't understand why with all the smart people in the world a solution is not found that does not put the whole program at risk.

I mean it just stands to reason that if you take money out there is going to be less and less money in it and someday SS will be nonexistent. This in my opinion is their plan.

0 Replies

Baldimo, I wonder if you understand that any money earned during a marriage is money that belongs to the marriage -- meaning both husband and wife. So it's not the husband's money to do with as he pleases.

However, most likely these things would be part of a divorce settlement if privat accounts are put into place. The husband would probably end up having to pay out half to the wife or put it in her own account. I'm not sure what would happen to widows and dependent children.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Baldimo, I wonder if you understand that any money earned during a marriage is money that belongs to the marriage -- meaning both husband and wife. So it's not the husband's money to do with as he pleases.

This statement is absolute nonsense. A spouse might be able to make a claim against the others wages but there is no automatic legal determination that wages belong to any marriage. Wages are earned and recorded against the earner. If your statement were true there would be no ability to file your income taxes as "Married filing seperately" and they wouldn't have seperate SS accounts to begin with.

The spouse might be able to make a claim against those wages depending on circumstances but whether or not they get it is up to a judge to determine what is equitable based on the sum total of the claim and properties owned individually or jointly.

It's neither here nor there IMO though. The entire concept of a spouse being able to file for SS retirement base don a spouse's income should be eliminated whether any other changes in the plan come about or not.

0 Replies

Ever hear of Community Property?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ever hear of Community Property?

Yup. It applies in 7 of the 50 states and has a big zilch to do with anything in Federal programs.

0 Replies

Actually 9 states have communit property laws. As for nothing to do with federal programs, try telling that to the IRS.

0 Replies

According to the IRS: "The theory underlying community property is analogous to that of a partnership. Each spouse contributes labor (and in some states, capital) for the benefit of the community, and shares equally in the profits and income earned by the community. Thus, each spouse owns an automatic 50% interest in all community property, regardless of which spouse acquired the community property. Spouses may also hold separate property, which they solely own and control, but the law in the community property states does not favor this."

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Baldimo, I wonder if you understand that any money earned during a marriage is money that belongs to the marriage -- meaning both husband and wife. So it's not the husband's money to do with as he pleases.

This statement is absolute nonsense.

I disagree.

Quote:

A spouse might be able to make a claim against the others wages

That was pretty much my point. How would she have grounds to make such a claim if what I say is such absolute nonsense?

Quote:

It's neither here nor there IMO though. The entire concept of a spouse being able to file for SS retirement base don a spouse's income should be eliminated whether any other changes in the plan come about or not.

I emphatically disagree with this statement. I wonder how much you value the unpaid work of keeping a house and raising children. Women are at a distinct financial disadvantage as it is, even if they return to work while their children are in their formative years. The time taken out for birth and the subsequent burden of being the mom (sick days, can't work late, etc...) add up to a woman with a career significanly behind that of her husband.

If what you advocate were to happen, there would be no guaranteed retirment for women who made the sacrifice to raise children. You are suggesting making it even more thankless than it already is. If you think that women don't spend enough time raising their childrent now, just wait until something like this were to happen. If we are each only worth what someone else is willing to pay us, then women (and men, btw) who choose to do the most important job there is are worth zilch.

But the point of my post, the part you snipped, was that these things would be settled in court or in a divorce settlement. Precisely because a personal account would be a marital asset that the spouse would have a claim to.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
A spouse might be able to make a claim against the others wages

That was pretty much my point. How would she have grounds to make such a claim if what I say is such absolute nonsense?

Fairly simply. There is a large difference between having any automatic right to half of one's income and having a vested claim to half of teh marital assets. The first is an "in kind" division of property and isn't required even in any of the community property states. The claim that is almost always used (in community property states) is against half of the total assets. The car, house, bank accounts aren't all cut in half. The total value of all marital assets is calculated and each is awarded as close to half of the total as possible.

Quote:

Quote:

It's neither here nor there IMO though. The entire concept of a spouse being able to file for SS retirement based on a spouse's income should be eliminated whether any other changes in the plan come about or not.

I emphatically disagree with this statement. I wonder how much you value the unpaid work of keeping a house and raising children. Women are at a distinct financial disadvantage as it is, even if they return to work while their children are in their formative years. The time taken out for birth and the subsequent burden of being the mom (sick days, can't work late, etc...) add up to a woman with a career significanly behind that of her husband.

If what you advocate were to happen, there would be no guaranteed retirment for women who made the sacrifice to raise children.

I have said nothing even remotely like this. If what I were advocating were to happen, anyone that spends their lives as a "stay at home spouse" would have their SS benefit set at a predetermined rate instead of relying on their spouses income.

Quote:

You are suggesting making it even more thankless than it already is. If you think that women don't spend enough time raising their childrent now, just wait until something like this were to happen. If we are each only worth what someone else is willing to pay us, then women (and men, btw) who choose to do the most important job there is are worth zilch.

Again, you are making unfounded assumptions. Take 2 women - both choose to stay at home and raise their 3 children. Woman #1 has a spouse that earns $5 million/year. Woman #2 has a spouse that earns $20K/year.

Why should woman #1 automatically be granted a much higher benefit then woman #2 for doing the same job when neither of their benefits is calculted on what they've actually done? Why shouldn't there be a standard defined benefit established for a stay at home parent that isn't dependent on someone else's earnings?

0 Replies

"Why should woman #1 automatically be granted a much higher benefit then woman #2 for doing the same job when neither of their benefits is calculted on what they've actually done? Why shouldn't there be a standard defined benefit established for a stay at home parent that isn't dependent on someone else's earnings?"

This is about the sexist statement I have come across on a2k.

0 Replies

Women and Bush's social security plan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know