Fix Social Security - Eliminate Spousal Benefit

[pb4uski]

One problem of mismanagement or outright fraud is the judges that approve Disability at rates that approach 100% or in one case a grudge in WV had approved 100% of claims that were originally denied.

Now I see what your concern is.... I agree that SSDI fraud is a concern but this report doesn't make it sound so bad... according the the report only 9% of all SSDI claims are approved by a judge and overall claims are declining.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/chart-book-social-security-disability-insurance

 

[pb4uski]

I have no idea if it's technically a misconception or not but I'll call that BS - I know what's been implied. What is right is right!

Ok, good luck to you with that.

 

[RetireBy90]

Now I see what your concern is.... I agree that SSDI fraud is a concern but this report doesn't make it sound so bad... according the the report only 9% of all SSDI claims are approved by a judge and overall claims are declining.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/chart-book-social-security-disability-insurance

Chart titled “Disability allowance fell charply after 2010” seems to show about 45% of applications allowed, and it is the highest percentage on the chart. Knowing you are numbers guy, help me understand where you get 9% please.
Report says that claims follow the business cycle. Doesn’t that lead you to believe that there is some lack of a job caused the application rather than new onset disability?

 

[RetiredAt55.5]

+1

 

[pb4uski]

Chart titled “Disability allowance fell charply after 2010” seems to show about 45% of applications allowed, and it is the highest percentage on the chart. Knowing you are numbers guy, help me understand where you get 9% please.
Report says that claims follow the business cycle. Doesn’t that lead you to believe that there is some lack of a job caused the application rather than new onset disability?

Looks like you didn't read far enough.

 

[ownyourfuture]

“Insolvency” is a an unnecessarily scary word. SS actuaries’ very worst case scenarios are that benefits would need to be cut by 27% or so in the early 2030s should Congress do nothing at all.

No disrespect & not trying to be argumentative, but are you certain that scenario is truly up-to-date/real time ?

 

[pb4uski]

Yup, pretty close .. google is your friend. Why did you think it was different?

"The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, the same as reported last year. At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits."

Source:. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

Thank you all for your responses.

However, I would like to keep this thread focused on the elimination of the spousal benefit. There have been many other general threads concerning the need to fix SS but I would if possible like to keep this one focused on the question that I raised. I would prefer that my question does not devolve into a general we need to fix SS thread.

Okay, fine. Fair enough. I would say that the onus, then, is on you to give a hint of a shadow of an intimation as to why you think that eliminating the spousal benefit could have a substantial impact on SS's finances. I would wager it is a negligible effect.

Whether or not the spousal benefit rules are good public policy is a different discussion.

 

[Montecfo]

I expect reform will involve both higher SS taxes and increased retirement age. It just about has to, same as was true in the 1980s.

I tend to think taxing benefits at 100 percent is a non-starter, except perhaps at high income levels.

 

[Texas Proud]

I wonder how much of SS problems today are due to mismanagement and fraud.

Since there is really no money being invested, only bookkeeping entries, there is nothing to mismanage or places to defraud...


I would say that it is a rounding error on the whole system.

 

[Katsmeow]

DH and I both worked full time and our SS benefits are very similar. I am not a fan of one spouse not working (absent disability of course). That said, your idea has a number of significant problems. Let's imagine a husband, for example, who wants his wife to be a SAHM. Yes, those people still exist. So, she stays home and takes care of kids and home (which her husband prefers) and either never works outside the home or her earnings are minimal.

And, then once the kids are gone, her husband decides to trade her in for a new model. They get divorced and now she doesn't even get the spousal benefit and is in poverty.

In most instances of course the situations where a spousal benefit is paid is because that is the choice the couple made. They chose to have one half of the couple either not work at all or that half earned so little that the spousal benefit is more. In most instances this is a shared decision. But, in your solution the entire negative of that decision is placed on the spouse who earned either nothing or very little. That puts that person at a real vulnerability. Only one person suffers in this situation the suffering is all on the part of the non-working spouse.

 

[Midpack]

Funny how no solution to the inevitable Soc Sec insolvency ever seems fair to [-]voters[/-] everyone even though it’s obvious what has to be done, there are only a couple real levers to pull, just a matter of how much for each...

 

[Dtail]

I expect reform will involve both higher SS taxes and increased retirement age. It just about has to, same as was true in the 1980s.

I tend to think taxing benefits at 100 percent is a non-starter, except perhaps at high income levels.

Generally agree.

 

[Bigdawg]

DH and I both worked full time and our SS benefits are very similar. I am not a fan of one spouse not working (absent disability of course). That said, your idea has a number of significant problems. Let's imagine a husband, for example, who wants his wife to be a SAHM. Yes, those people still exist. So, she stays home and takes care of kids and home (which her husband prefers) and either never works outside the home or her earnings are minimal.

And, then once the kids are gone, her husband decides to trade her in for a new model. They get divorced and now she doesn't even get the spousal benefit and is in poverty.

In most instances of course the situations where a spousal benefit is paid is because that is the choice the couple made. They chose to have one half of the couple either not work at all or that half earned so little that the spousal benefit is more. In most instances this is a shared decision. But, in your solution the entire negative of that decision is placed on the spouse who earned either nothing or very little. That puts that person at a real vulnerability. Only one person suffers in this situation the suffering is all on the part of the non-working spouse.

This archaic thinking has to go away. The man wants? Who cares? My wife doesn't give a crap what I want. She does exactly what she wants as an independent human being. Children need to be taken care of, elderly need to be taken care of, infirmed need to be taken care of, wives do not need to be taken care of. DW and I guided two human beings from birth to full adulthood while both being active duty Marines. I am 100% for full equality between men and women. If a wife chooses to give up employment to raise children she can risk that her husband will "trade her in" on a younger women. It has happened often to male friends of mine where the wife traded her man in for a different man. Goes both ways. SS beni's should be earned by the individual. I do believe in survivor beni's though.

Mods: Apparently many posters here have reading comprehenbsion issues. Please delete all posts that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread-elimination of spousal SS.

Let the dart throwing commence.

 

[Dtail]

Mods: Apparently many posters here have reading comprehenbsion issues. Please delete all posts that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread-elimination of spousal SS.

Let the dart throwing commence.

Okay now that is funny.

 

[gauss]

One problem of mismanagement or outright fraud is the judges that approve Disability at rates that approach 100% or in one case a grudge in WV had approved 100% of claims that were originally denied.

Maybe true, but as a healthy retired individual, this is not part of my planning.

I believe that the disability (DI) trust funds are separate and distinct form the normal retirement (OASI) trust funds.

Note that there have been some proposals to merge the funds so as to relieve the pressure on the disability (DI) trust.

I would not be in favor of that proposal.

-gauss

 

[Alan]

Thanks for the interesting discussion. The thread has now moved firmly away from spousal benefits onto general SS funding issues so we have decided to close this particular discussion.