09-22-2011, 02:30 PM
If the breadwinner divorces his/her spouse after at least 10 years of marriage and the ex does not remarry, the breadwinner, the ex spouse and the current spouse can all collect benefits from the breadwinner. No limit to the number of spouses who can collect off the same breadwinner and long as they were married for 10 years, been divorced for at least 2 years, and are at least 62 years old. The breadwinner's benefits are not impacted by the number of others collecting on his/her social security. This is my understanding of the written social security protocols. I work in elder care and know a few elderly women who have been living with men for years but won't marry them because their spousal social security benefits would be less with the new man than the ex's, and they'd have to be married for 10 years before they could collect from the current partner's social security anyway.
In 1955, the divorce rate was about 26%. In 2005, it was closer to 50% (data differs slightly depending on source, but same ballpark).
I am no expert, but trying to understand some of the social factors that have all sides agreeing that the current program is limited in its longevity. None of the current candidates claim that we should just keep doing what we're doing now and everything will be fine. Some politicians and pundits claim the system is viable, but needs to be reformed to today's social climate or managed by the states instead of the Fed. Others say the system was based on a flawed foundation (Ponzi Scheme or otherwise) from the start. Either way, if dramatic changes in how many people would be contributing and how many would be collecting (and for how long) were not estimated and factored into the original plan, it's no wonder the current program is nearing breaking point.
Wish I had more time to research it in depth. I'm just trying to uderstand the problems in order to evaluate which proposed solution makes the most sense. It will be interesting to see more details as to how various candidates attempt to address the issue in a way that doesn't pull the rug out from under senior citizens while also taking into account young and middle aged workers. Tough issue, imo.
In 1955, the divorce rate was about 26%. In 2005, it was closer to 50% (data differs slightly depending on source, but same ballpark).
I am no expert, but trying to understand some of the social factors that have all sides agreeing that the current program is limited in its longevity. None of the current candidates claim that we should just keep doing what we're doing now and everything will be fine. Some politicians and pundits claim the system is viable, but needs to be reformed to today's social climate or managed by the states instead of the Fed. Others say the system was based on a flawed foundation (Ponzi Scheme or otherwise) from the start. Either way, if dramatic changes in how many people would be contributing and how many would be collecting (and for how long) were not estimated and factored into the original plan, it's no wonder the current program is nearing breaking point.
Wish I had more time to research it in depth. I'm just trying to uderstand the problems in order to evaluate which proposed solution makes the most sense. It will be interesting to see more details as to how various candidates attempt to address the issue in a way that doesn't pull the rug out from under senior citizens while also taking into account young and middle aged workers. Tough issue, imo.