Nanny G giveth and she taketh away: Social Security benefit

[iris lilies]

There has been little coverage of the recent Congressional budget that eliminated a "loophole" (their words) in social security. This is something DH was planning on taking, working off my higher Soc Security payment. Basically, it works for married couples where is there income disparity. The lower earning spouse can file and suspend their own benefits and draw off a spouse's benefits. Those born in the year 1953 still qualify, those like us born in 1954 lost the benefit.

According to the mainstream media sources, this only affected a tiny number of people. Apparently DH is part of the less than 1% who could figure it out and planned for it, even it it's now been eliminated as an option. And oh yeah, AARP backed it. Yet another reason why I will not join the AARP, thanks for looking out for us seniors AARP!

If you can't read the article below and are interested in the topic, Google "social security loophole" to find out about it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/business/retirement/rarely-used-social-security-loopholes-worth-thousands-of-dollars-are-closed.html?_r=0

[kib]

Loophole my a$$. It was a straightforward clause in the SS contract, not some slippery secret. If that's a loophole then the whole concept of SS is a loophole.

It basically "worked" for anyone who currently has a lower payout than their spouse but will have a higher payout if they live to be old. Hard to imagine that was an insignificant number of people.

I just found out about this a few months ago and it was perfect for us, I was amazed they offered it. Of course it's gone. I'm now going off to practice my peasant dance of gratitude over missing the cutoff by a decade instead of a few measly months. At least I wasn't screwed as badly as you, woo hoo. >:(

[bae]

Bother.

[iris lilies]

Loophole my a$$. It was a straightforward clause in the SS contract, not some slippery secret. If that's a loophole then the whole concept of SS is a loophole.

It basically "worked" for anyone who currently has a lower payout than their spouse but will have a higher payout if they live to be old. Hard to imagine that was an insignificant number of people.

I just found out about this a few months ago and it was perfect for us, I was amazed they offered it. Of course it's gone. I'm now going off to practice my peasant dance of gratitude over missing the cutoff by a decade instead of a few measly months. At least I wasn't screwed as badly as you, woo hoo. >:(

haha, sing it sister.

I too, am surprised that such a small % of pensioners were taking advantage of it and I am skeptical of that fact.

I would think that traditional stay-at-home moms who later then get little jobs and get in their 40 quarters of Soc Security credits would have been working this "loophole." It seems quite anti-woman. Am surprised our President would sign off on that, but perhaps he didn't read it and we've got to pass it before we know what's in it.

[kib]

The only thing I can think is that much of the SAH contingent you mention is never going to receive a benefit as big as their spousal benefit no matter how old they get; it wouldn't pay for them to switch to their own benefit plan even if they were 80. But it still feels to me like it directly targets couples who for whatever reason have a certain income gap between them; not too big but not too small, the lesser end being traditionally women in the same career earning less than their male counterparts. And if it's so "insignificant", why take it away?

[peggy]

There has been little coverage of the recent Congressional budget that eliminated a "loophole" (their words) in social security. This is something DH was planning on taking, working off my higher Soc Security payment. Basically, it works for married couples where is there income disparity. The lower earning spouse can file and suspend their own benefits and draw off a spouse's benefits. Those born in the year 1953 still qualify, those like us born in 1954 lost the benefit.

According to the mainstream media sources, this only affected a tiny number of people. Apparently DH is part of the less than 1% who could figure it out and planned for it, even it it's now been eliminated as an option. And oh yeah, AARP backed it. Yet another reason why I will not join the AARP, thanks for looking out for us seniors AARP!

If you can't read the article below and are interested in the topic, Google "social security loophole" to find out about it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/business/retirement/rarely-used-social-security-loopholes-worth-thousands-of-dollars-are-closed.html?_r=0

Gee, considering how the House crafts the budget, and the House is republican, does this mean you won't vote republican in the future? ;)Funny you should be complaining about this, yet vote republican when all the republicans try to out do each other in how badly they will screw retirees.:0!

[iris lilies]

Gee, considering how the House crafts the budget, and the House is republican, does this mean you won't vote republican in the future? ;)Funny you should be complaining about this, yet vote republican when all the republicans try to out do each other in how badly they will screw retirees.:0!

pegster, I knew exactly what you would post in reply and you didn't disappoint.

you see, I EXPECT republicans to screw little old pensioners like DH and myself 'cause that's just part of taking on fiscal responsibility. Someone has to be the grownups here. Wish they would be more grownup and TRULY attack deficit spending which would be much more painful for us.

But when the Prez hangs us out to dry, now that we are little and old and vulnerable, victims if you will, well--it's just noxious. And then the freakin' AARP backs him up. Partners in crime they are.

[Alan]

Gee, considering how the House crafts the budget, and the House is republican, does this mean you won't vote republican in the future? ;)Funny you should be complaining about this, yet vote republican when all the republicans try to out do each other in how badly they will screw retirees.:0!
Now, now Peggy, you can't have it both ways. I seem to recall you giving Bill Clinton credit for balancing the budget provided to him by a Republican controlled House and blaming George W. Bush for the country's first trillion dollar deficit pushed through by a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and signed by Barack Obama by the way).

I'm beginning to believe you've got something against Republicans.;)

[Williamsmith]

So isn't the savings on this "loophole" pretty much a joke compared to the military expenditures? Selective belt tightening.

[jp1]

So isn't the savings on this "loophole" pretty much a joke compared to the military expenditures? Selective belt tightening.

Seniors don't give enough campaign contributions. And their displeasure can be ignored as long as both parties get on board since they will still vote for 'someone'. The death providers will simply stop giving to politicians if we stop making up excuses for war.

[iris lilies]

Seniors don't give enough campaign contributions. And their displeasure can be ignored as long as both parties get on board since they will still vote for 'someone'. The death providers will simply stop giving to politicians if we stop making up excuses for war.
This senior may well vote third part next time around. Sure, I will never not vote, but they will be unhappy about who
I will vote for.

[peggy]

pegster, I knew exactly what you would post in reply and you didn't disappoint.

you see, I EXPECT republicans to screw little old pensioners like DH and myself 'cause that's just part of taking on fiscal responsibility. Someone has to be the grownups here. Wish they would be more grownup and TRULY attack deficit spending which would be much more painful for us.

But when the Prez hangs us out to dry, now that we are little and old and vulnerable, victims if you will, well--it's just noxious. And then the freakin' AARP backs him up. Partners in crime they are.

Oh, so you EXPECT the republicans to screw you but complain when the President signs the bill? What am I missing here...?? And isn't this kind of like saying how horrible the food was...and such small portions! Kind of like the folks who are shocked they will lose their health care when they are the ones who voted for the nut job who RAN on dismantling the health care. You got nothing to complain about iris. You voted republican which would mean you wanted what they were selling. You should be happy you are losing this. In fact, you should be crowing that Obama will have to sign this if he wants any budget passed. You won. Don't complain.
And won't you just be tickled pink when they completely do away with medicare and instead give you 'vouchers' or tell you to start a savings account to pay for your health needs.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kentucky-confronts-the-consequences-its-decision

And HE didn't screw you, they did. He doesn't craft the budget. He has absolutely no power in crafting the budget. None!

And yes, I suppose i knew you would try to praise the republicans while blaming Obama for what they did, but, well....

[peggy]

Now, now Peggy, you can't have it both ways. I seem to recall you giving Bill Clinton credit for balancing the budget provided to him by a Republican controlled House and blaming George W. Bush for the country's first trillion dollar deficit pushed through by a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and signed by Barack Obama by the way).

I'm beginning to believe you've got something against Republicans.;)

Now now Alan, you can't have it both ways. You know good and well Obama didn't craft that budget. Republicans did. And yes i believe he will sign it cause Democrats know you need to compromise to get things done.
And here you go again trying to lay everything at Obama's feet. Especially that huge deficit, but I realize you are only hoping folks here don't know how that deficit got that way. I bet you are counting on no one knowing (or remembering) those two unfunded wars that Georgie started, and which must be paid for.(deficit) Not to mention the huge tax break he gave his wealthy buddies at the start of it all. So, we have greatly reduced income and ginormous expenditures handed to the next guy (Obama) cause we all know everything doesn't start and stop with each new President. Of course Obama signed it cause it would have been foolishness wrapped in folly to not PAY OUR BILLS.
Those bills needed to be paid the day before Obama took office and paid the day after he took office. Oh, there was also the bank bailout which Bush started (remember?) and the failing auto industry, and...well, the country was in free fall when Bush closed the door and handed the key to Obama. And anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that.
Obama did what he needed to do. What the country needed him to do. thank god he was President then, and now. Unfortunately republicans, who know their voters will always vote for them while blaming the other guy for their actions, are trying to hand this country, and the world, over to idiots. Their ideology is so warped and so blind that they would literally destroy this country rather than 'let' a democrat win. Let me guess...you'd vote for Carson or Trump over Hill or Bernie, right?

[peggy]

This senior may well vote third part next time around. Sure, I will never not vote, but they will be unhappy about who
I will vote for.

Well I hope you vote 3rd party. Believe it or not, i strongly believe in the 2 party (or 3) system, but the republican party is a total joke, and an embarrassment. It will only right itself when people stop voting for it and tell them why. I don't expect any die hard republicans to vote democratic, but maybe 3rd party.
I like both Hill and Bernie and respect them both, for different reasons. But if my party were to put up a clown car like the republicans and try to call it serious, i would definitely vote 3rd party. Or even republican, if there were any to respect in the lot.

[Alan]

Now now Alan, you can't have it both ways. You know good and well Obama didn't craft that budget. Republicans did. And yes i believe he will sign it cause Democrats know you need to compromise to get things done.
And here you go again trying to lay everything at Obama's feet.
Actually, I was laying everything at the feet of Congress where all spending originates. I just found it interesting that in your world, overspending under a Republican President with a Democratic Congress is the Republicans fault, and overspending under a Democratic President with a Republican Congress is again, the Republican's fault.
Over the years, I've tried mightily to rationalize this but still can only conclude, Damn Republicans!

[Teacher Terry]

What I find really sad is that both parties have quit compromising like in the past. 30 years ago both worked together for this country. All this polarization is tearing us apart. Yes, I think the Republicans have done a worse job then the Democrats but I am not thrilled with either party. The loophole IL talks about has been getting a lot of press lately but I find it hard to believe that we had a ton of people taking advantage of it.

[ApatheticNoMore]

In theory I oppose all cuts to Social Security. So I agree. Solidarity! I really do mean these programs should not be cut, it's the slipperiest of all slopes, and can mean no good, these programs are survival to the elderly.

In actuality I find it hard to get worked up over this particular loophole, as it's kind of unfair in the first place that married people should get any advantages from the government that unmarried people don't. But anyone could choose to marry? Sadly no, some don't want to marry, but even if it's something they *wanted* and pursued, some people will have trouble finding people to even date which is sad, but even beyond finding dates, some are probably just not cut out for it at some deep level maybe, and it never happens.

[Williamsmith]

So let's say you were a woman who married an attorney and for the first fifteen years of marriage you gave birth to two children and was a stay at home mom. Then you got a job outside the home at a local department store and for the next ten years aquired enough social security credits to qualify for a benefit. The kids are gone but you and the hubby are having marital problems and get divorced. You plan to collect a restricted spousal benefit and let your credits build to age 70. Well, now you are screwed. All the support you gave your husband through all those years of marriage so he could go out and make all those social security deposits are for nothing.

[sweetana3]

I think from some of the comments I heard at a large financial planning seminar that this whole area is very unknown to the vast majority of people. I fell into the category that knew nothing about it and I worked with taxes and finances for my career. Social Security was not on my radar.

Only those with enough money to find out from research or advisors even have any idea of the complexities of file and suspend and such. I suspect very very few will fall into the "screwed" scenario above. Which is why Congress felt comfortable making such a change because there were probably few voters who would care.

[Songbird]

I think from some of the comments I heard at a large financial planning seminar that this whole area is very unknown to the vast majority of people. I fell into the category that knew nothing about it and I worked with taxes and finances for my career. Social Security was not on my radar.

Only those with enough money to find out from research or advisors even have any idea of the complexities of file and suspend and such. I suspect very very few will fall into the "screwed" scenario above. Which is why Congress felt comfortable making such a change because there were probably few voters who would care.

About a year ago hubby and I had met up for dinner with his sister and brother-in-law that were traveling through our state. They were excitedly talking about their upcoming retirements, and the one and the same SS loophole that is spoken of here. They had recently found out about it from their financial advisor and were planning to implement it in their future retirement years. Bet they are quite disappointed now.... But you're right, sweetana3, it definitely isn't or wasn't common knowledge for the average joe.

[kib]

So let's say you were a woman who married an attorney and for the first fifteen years of marriage you gave birth to two children and was a stay at home mom. Then you got a job outside the home at a local department store and for the next ten years aquired enough social security credits to qualify for a benefit. The kids are gone but you and the hubby are having marital problems and get divorced. You plan to collect a restricted spousal benefit and let your credits build to age 70. Well, now you are screwed. All the support you gave your husband through all those years of marriage so he could go out and make all those social security deposits are for nothing. She can still take a spousal benefit at whatever point she wishes, she just has to choose which salary she's going to base it on with no oppportunity to switch it over later. I'm not sure why this benefit ever existed, but I'm also not sure why they're taking it away.

ANM - I was single for so long, and in principal I agree with you. The country doesn't need more babies and our social fabric has totally changed in the last 75 years, I see no reason to financially reward married people over single ones. I'm just annoyed with the feeling that once again, they put a chain across the line two people ahead of me.

[iris lilies]

I think from some of the comments I heard at a large financial planning seminar that this whole area is very unknown to the vast majority of people. I fell into the category that knew nothing about it and I worked with taxes and finances for my career. Social Security was not on my radar.

Only those with enough money to find out from research or advisors even have any idea of the complexities of file and suspend and such. I suspect very very few will fall into the "screwed" scenario above. Which is why Congress felt comfortable making such a change because there were probably few voters who would care.

well, DH knew about it because he reads a lot, and probably he was tipped off years ago by a Saturday morning financial radio show that talks about various ways to take Social Security benefits.

You are still ahead of him however. He won't do index funds. Just yesterday we were in the office of a financial advisor who keeps a bit of our money, and DH and the advisor were jawing about "the market" and specific stocks and company earnings and predictions, etc. and I just hummed a little tune to myself while the boys had their pissing contest about stock picking. My tune had these words "index funds/index funds/index funds" hahaha.

[Williamsmith]

If I were in that boat, I'd be pissed that I might have based my retirement planning on the notion that this option was going to be available at a certain point in time. Therefore it's not just a money grab.....it also stole valuable time that i would have had to adjust had i known......

[kib]

That's an interesting point, William Smith. Time theft is starting to creep up on my list of irritations. No, I don't want to fill out another damn survey, on my time, for free. No, I don't want to listen to a commercial, I don't want to spend four weeks switching banks only to have The Deal That Made It Worthwhile revoked a month later, I don't want to be on hold for half an hour and I don't want to spend half the day fiddling around finding the ideal airline morning flights only to have them all changed to afternoon flights with 25 minute layovers (!) I sometimes imagine there is some satanic system set up that rewards certain individuals and industries for each hour of life they steal from us.

Funny, as human beings go I'm really not that busy, but I still begrudge wasting time and focus. Putting in the effort to make really good choices only to find that it was pointless or even counterproductive, peeve of the year.

[jp1]

While. I agree that it sucks when someone or some organization wastes my time I think Williamsmith was talking about the loss of time necessary to accrue X amount of savings. A couple that had been planning on utilizing this part of social security may well have made the decision for one, or both, of them to continue working if they'd had advance warning about this change. Once retired, and collecting SS, that's no longer an option.

Of course, theft of time could also tie back to our acceptance of a central bank that perputually destroys the value of our money, but since they've been doing it for over 100 years most people are so complacent about it that I'm sure I'll get responses to this asking how we'd ever know the right amount of money for the economy without them and other such misguided questions, despite the same people's certainty that unfettered capitalist markets always figure things out. Except for this ONE particular aspect of the market...

[peggy]

well, DH knew about it because he reads a lot, and probably he was tipped off years ago by a Saturday morning financial radio show that talks about various ways to take Social Security benefits.

You are still ahead of him however. He won't do index funds. Just yesterday we were in the office of a financial advisor who keeps a bit of our money, and DH and the advisor were jawing about "the market" and specific stocks and company earnings and predictions, etc. and I just hummed a little tune to myself while the boys had their pissing contest about stock picking. My tune had these words "index funds/index funds/index funds" hahaha.

:D

[peggy]

That's an interesting point, William Smith. Time theft is starting to creep up on my list of irritations. No, I don't want to fill out another damn survey, on my time, for free. No, I don't want to listen to a commercial, I don't want to spend four weeks switching banks only to have The Deal That Made It Worthwhile revoked a month later, I don't want to be on hold for half an hour and I don't want to spend half the day fiddling around finding the ideal airline morning flights only to have them all changed to afternoon flights with 25 minute layovers (!) I sometimes imagine there is some satanic system set up that rewards certain individuals and industries for each hour of life they steal from us.

Funny, as human beings go I'm really not that busy, but I still begrudge wasting time and focus. Putting in the effort to make really good choices only to find that it was pointless or even counterproductive, peeve of the year.

speaking purely as someone who has flown way too many hours...you want that 25 minute layover cause your flight will NEVER be on time! (let me tell you about the time i had a 24 hour layover in NJ because of an alligator on the tarmac..):0!

[kib]

Oh, I want at least 90 minutes! Getting off a plane that's probably late and filled with people in front of me who have packed elephants in the overhead bins, then racing like OJ through three terminals to my next flight, maybe stopping to pick up and re-check my luggage, go through 2-step customs and get through security again. In 25 minutes. In LA. Oh, and somehow manage to be at the boarding gate 30 minutes before takeoff. ... if I had wings, I wouldn't need a plane ticket in the first place.

I'll agree that the "we'll be boarding in 24 minutes ... or maybe 24 hours" delays are horrid, but better their fault than mine.

[Williamsmith]

I pay the extra for non stop any time it's available. My non techno world includes a healthy dose of impatience passed on by my father to me. And I don't like my luggage ending up in the wrong city or having to be without when boarding the cruise ship as happened to me the very first and last and only time I cruised.

[kib]

Sometimes I do fly with a bigger carry on, especially if I'm switching airlines so I'd have to pick up and re-check my luggage. But some people seem to be mentally ill, the amount of crap they need in their airline seat with them. My most common flight is from Tucson to Harrisburg, which means at least one and usually two stopovers. PITA, I'm traveling 6 hours as the crow flies, and it usually takes 15.