Oh it makes sense for you to take it. It makes no sense for the federal government to allow you to take it.
But they do, so go ahead.
2 Likes
I will edit my post to be clearer. There is no societal reason why AJstudies & Mr AJ should get 150% of AJstudies’ earned benefit while she and Mr AJ are both alive.
If she died first I can certainly understand letting him take 50% of her benefit after she dies.
To be clear, upon the death of a spouse you may receive a widow/widower’s benefit that is 100% of their benefit, not the 50%. Your own benefit is considered to be the first dollars/portion of your benefit, then if 100% of your deceased spouse’s (or ex-spouse if married more than 10 years) benefit is greater than that, you get the excess as a widow(er)'s benefit.
OASDI was designed when dual earners weren’t as common. It was more common for a couple to have a single income. It does make sense for the needs of a single person to be less than the needs of a couple.
Ok, but if you & I work at the same company for the same pay our entire careers, such that our earnings records are identical, but at the time we retire I am married to a SAH spouse and you are not… you’re saying that I deserve 150% more Social Security income based on my earnings record than you?
I’ve been paying lower income taxes all along by virtue of being married to a non-working spouse. But now in addition to lower taxes I’m also entitled to a higher income???
Oh, I didn’t actually know that. I’m not sure I agree with that either. But thank you for clarifying how it works.
I had to mimic benefit calculations for part of my career so there are parts of Social Security I’m intimately acquainted with. But widow/widowers benefits is something I’ve never modeled, so I’m less familiar with how that works.
“Deserve” is a little strong. Maybe consider it a regressive tax on higher income.
2 earners, 2 x income, 2 x OASDI tax 200% benefit.
1 earner, 1 x income, 1 x OASDI tax, 150% benefit.
Well, I think the 150% is dumb. You are free to disagree.
You are free to DINK what you want :). I agree it may be antiquated, but any phase out should be gradual.
But really it’s:
Working spouse: 2x income, 2x SS tax, 200% benefit
SAH spouse: 1x income, 1x SS tax, 150% benefit
no spouse: 1x income, 1x SS tax, 100% benefit
I dunno, still seems kind of unfair to me.
The old fairness vs social adequacy dilemma.
Social adequacy is letting the widow(er) draw a portion of the benefit after the earner dies. There’s certainly social value in not leaving that person destitute.
But if the couple has been getting along with 100% of the earner’s income all along, it’s not clear why they suddenly need 150% of the earner’s benefit upon retirement.
I see I’m a month late to this discussion, but I’ll respond anyway.
How about this:
Andy and Bob were born in the same year. In every year that they worked, Andy earned exactly twice what Bob earned. Andy paid twice as much tax as Bob.
But, Andy’s benefit is only 60% greater than Bob’s. i.e. Bob’s benefit is 25% higher than it would have been if Bob’s benefit had been exactly half of Andy’s.
Do you think Bob is “entitled” to that extra benefit? After all, Bob has been getting along on exactly 50% of Andy’s income in every year before retirement, why does he get 63% of Andy’s SS benefit now that they are retired?
My initial response would be to consider what is the “base income” that anyone needs for basic sustenance. With this amount being “fixed,” it would be a smaller percentage of Andy’s income than of Bob’s.
the rest would be an exercise of what level of earned income would produce this amount (as a baseline), then determine what amount those earning above this amount would supplement the shortfall of those earning below this amount.
Most likely, Andy will be subsidizing more of those below the above “baseline earned income”.
In 2021 the median income was $46,625. Someone making minimum wage then is living on $30K per year. But actuaries can make $150K or $240K. Do you want Social Security to pay the actuaries 5x or 8x as much as the minimum wage worker? How much more do you suppose that would cost?
P.S. if you could get that implemented I could give notice at my job kthxbai
2 Likes
I think it is good public policy to pay Bob a higher percent that Andy. In fact, if I wrote the rules, they would get the same dollar amount.
I also think it is good policy to pay the two person family that had an income of X a higher percent than a one person household that had the identical income.
“social adequacy” in both cases.
But, the other poster didn’t like the second case and I was trying to suggest the reasoning is the same as the first.
I believe you are saying that you want SS to redistribute some income from higher income earners to lower earners. I agree.
The earlier poster seemed skeptical of (IMO) the same rule applied to families, where the lower per family member incomes are subsidized by the higher per family member incomes.
I might go further down this road than you would, that’s another discussion.
1 Like
Any sense that SS will be weakened under Trump? Should someone who’s between 62 and 70 claim it now (rather than wait until 70), if there’s a good chance they will have their payments reduced in the next few years?
That’s his voter base, the lifeblood of the Republican Party
Medicaid on the other hand….
Agree he will gut Medicaid.
Would make no sense to gut SS. He would lose so many of his core votes.