So sorry to hear you are tied up in this, but I did it also. 225? Right, it's all I got from my wife's over 75k in contribution to Social Security. We had planed on a retirement with both of us getting our SS, but I got 225 when she died and I am left to scramble to make up the short fall. Hillary Clinton once talked of a widows benefit, but I haven't hear anything about that since. The rules and practices of Social Security are as politics will allow them to be. We should all retire comfortably, and with the demise of fixed benefit pensions Social Security plays a bigger role than ever and yet in our political moment, of there for it, we're against it gets zero done. Let's hope we're at a turning point. At least they didn't make you wait on hold!
When I buried my parents several months apart a few years back I learned more than I ever wanted to know about funerals. Down in Philly, where they were from, a basic funeral was well over $10,000. That was without a hearse (people apparently don't do hearses any more) or a wake in the funeral parlor. Or the funeral lunch of course. If you need to buy a plot and headstone, add that on, too. I've heard of budget cremations as low as $3500, but I was pretty shocked overall at funeral expenses. And if someone is in nursing care, all of their money might be depleted by the time they pass, so those preplanning funeral accounts are important; you can set aside a certain amount that Medicaid won't claw back.
The other thing is, money gets locked down in the estate when someone dies. My Dad went first, and he and Mom owned everything jointly, including bank accounts, so the money was not an issue, But when Mom passed, her bank account froze. I had POA while she was alive and knew Mom wasn't going to be with us long so I moved $10,000 into a funeral account a few months before her death. I then moved more money right before she died to pay bills I didn't want to wait two years to pay while they wound down her (very) little estate; like money owed to her caregivers.
All of that is TMI, but I was shocked at how expensive it is to die. I have made no plans for myself,, but I do now have $100 per paycheck go into a set aside bank account I think of as a funeral account. Once that is big enough, I'll put it into a prepaid funeral account.
I found social security to be one of the easiest to deal with. (Verizon Wireless is still trying to bill me for my dead Dad's cell phone; Verizon was hands down the worst of them). I activated the online social security accounts for Mom and Dad (mysocialsecurity) and just did everything through that.
I certainly hear the frustration. If our loved ones knew the problems they left for us to resolve. My sister-in-law passed away 18 months ago and we still have not resolved her simple estate. Very frustrating. I'm wondering how long I have to wait for the $255. Good advice on the funeral planning. That was a godsend that we did that for my mother.
Pre planning one’s funeral and putting the money in the funeral home’s trust is one of the best gifts you can leave your family. I have done both and am currently developing a list of things like what direct deposit and debits need to be stopped, passwords, list of assets etc. I hope it will make things easier for my children when the time comes.
Thank you!! I just went in and established an account in the mysocialsecurity you mentioned. We have planned green burials and have purchased the plots but now I'm realizing we need to do more for those who have to manage things when my husband and I die.
The United States, in many ways, is inhumane to the living and the deceased. I was corresponding with a friend recently and she told that she and her husband plan to move to out of the States while healthy because she wanted to die with dignity. She is not poor, but her experiences with her parents’ end of life care has disgusted her.
Yes. It is a big ugly secret that the politicians don't seem to want to touch. Kirsten Gillibrand focuses a lot on human services, including elder care, but do you hear anything about it at all from the two candidates for President? I suspect the fix is so expensive they are all afraid to go near it. Yet all of us get old and have old people in our lives. My parents were very modest income but so long as they were independent they did just fine and were quite happy. The year before they died, Mom age 88, Dad age 85 moved reluctantly into a continuum of care senior residence. In that one year, independent living for one or both a combined total of 9 months, nursing care 4 months for Dad (hospice) and assisted living for 1 month and hospice 6 weeks for Mom, their assets were depleted from $340000 including their house value, down to about $30,000, In one year. The deal was if they ran out of money they would still be cared for at the continuum of care place. They did not outlive their income, but a few months more there they would have. This is what we all face...our elders work their whole lives and are expected to bankrupt themselves in their old age to get the care they need. I think a lot of people don't realize insurance doesn't cover nursing home stays unless it is for rehab.
And I wouldn't wish the quality of that nursing care on my worst enemy. The independent living and assisted lviing was good, but the nursing care was $200 a day- not covered by insurance- and they wouldn't even take my parents to the bathroom when they needed to go. We all took turns staying in the room, and paid a companion to spend time there to make sure my parents weren't neglected. Just awful.
Yes. Just awful. Dehumanizing. Other countries manage it without breaking their bank. We could also, with the political will. Worthwhile effort usually involves some painful compromises.
So is it better that parents have assets to obtain quality care for a good portion of elder care, or have no assets and be cared for by the government??
My guess is have some assets so you can get into a decent place. The places have actuaries. When my parents moved in, they were told they needed x amount of $$ plus value of house. Like I said, my parents did not outlive their money, but came close.
The place was very good except for nursing care. It was run by the Lutherans. No need to put up a lump sum up front- a buy in- just pay month to month, no lien on the assets, the residence wanted to make sure the money was there to pay. If folks don't inappropriately dissipate their assets- live large, give gifts to children etc, once the money runs out, they get Medicaid and the place cares for them the rest of their life. The thing is, the independent living was very nice and the assisted living was amazing, but the entire reason by parents went there was if they needed that high cost nursing care. And that was just awful. But no one has a crystal ball; my parents only lived less than a year after they moved in, but it could have been years there...I will do everything I can to stay out of a nursing home, I'll tell you that much. Like the Hotel California, once you're in one, you can never leave.
And this will all change if Donald Trump becomes President and implements Project 2025. There is wording in the document under Health and Human Services, pg 468 for Medicaid, “Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.”
A lot of the elderly in Nursing homes spend down all of their money and are only able to be in Medicaid beds. If there is a limit on their benefits, where will they go?
Besides this ridiculous $255 is an IRS rule that taxes earned income over $33,000 once you reach your Normal Retirement Age. So as many more people continue to work beyond the NRA due to the growing cost of living, they face this unfair elderly/senior tax. And the computation is complex as it uses one-half of your and your spouses SS payment as part of the calculation. So in many cases you will be paying taxes on money you have already paid into SS - double taxation. The IRS collects billions from this rule. When you question our elected officials about this situation, they say they know its unfair but can get no where in changing it because the government needs the money. You can pay taxes on up to 85% of your SS benefit if you earn a combined, jointly filed $41k. I Know because I worked full time 4 years beyond my NRA and still do part-time now but keep it under the $33k threshold less the SS benefits. No politician ever talks about this issue.
Just an observation on proposals to cut taxes — I don’t think there’s been a politician in history who, when they proposed to cut taxes, also proposed what services they would reduce or eliminate to pay for it.
I think it’s important to recognize that the Social Security system, while it’s a universal benefit for most Americans, is currently designed to help the financially vulnerable.
What often gets lost in discussions of Social Security benefits is that lower-income recipients — for example, those married couples earning less than $32,000 per year — pay no federal income taxes on their benefits. And in NYS, Social Security benefits are not taxed for any recipient.
It’s appropriate for upper-income recipients to be taxed on their benefits — they can easily afford to contribute their share.
The author makes a very good case for the creation of 401k-style accounts for at least the employees’ share of soc security contributions. There would then at least be a little more for the benes!!!!
HA HA,,, Please write Elise and let us know if she ever responds. This issue is certainly NOT in her wheelhouse..it would actually do something good for her constituents...
Ken you should write to Congresswoman Stefanik, or better yet call her office in Troy and ask them to take action. I would also suggest both our NY Senators. It’s as much their issue to resolve. That being said, let’s be careful on that roof.
I had a completely different experience with Social Security when my husband passed, last December. The funeral home notified SS and benefits were stopped. After about 4 weeks, I received a form in the mail to complete, which I did. Within a month I received a final benefit directly deposited to my checking account. There wasn’t any breakdown but the amount was considerably more than $255. I am assuming there might be a pro rated monthly benefit and the death benefit. It was an easy process and I appreciated the SS office’s efficiency. ( And I am not one to praise government agencies 🥴.)
No complaint with Social Security. I tend to be proactive and not wait to be contacted so I was ahead of the curve here. Although the fact Congress has no increased the death benefit in 70 years is something I'm astounded by.
Glad you didn’t fall off the roof. I didn’t have to get so deeply involved. The funeral Home (Kilmers) made the notification for me as part of the service. I just remember getting the “death benefit” a few weeks later and wondering why people were valued so little?
You are right; it is insulting and even hurtful. A number of years ago, Hilary Clinton introduced a much larger “widow’s benefit” which I was sort of glad went nowhere because it was absolutely sexist. I would suggest returning some of the money paid in to the system—maybe everything the individual contributed and let them keep the employer’s part—I understand they have encumbered much of the SS fund and it is no longer totally fluid. However, if you want action, why would you contact a minority legislator instead of taking it to Schumer and Gillibrand?
Well, because Elise Stefanik is my direct representative in Congress. I doubt Schumer or Gillibrand will pay much attention to me. It used to be your local rep might at least listen. Of course that is no longer true either unless it benefits her career in some way.
It seems like the death benefit should only kick in for those who really need it. If you had lilfe insurance or substantial assets, then the $255 is not needed at all.
Considering the difficulty (apparently) of just getting a cost of living increase for senior citizens, I guess we shouldnt be surprised that the "death" benefit hasnt increased in 70 years!!
There seems to be more concern (?) about our countrie's millionaires and billionaires ability to "survive" being taxed in the same manner as people who currently either work one to three jobs just to pay their bills and get by. I really have to wonder why the h**l that is?
I'll put this link here to today's Popular Information blog. I found it interesting if not uplifting!
I do believe there was a healthy increase this past year due to inflation - 4 percent I think - which is better than most raises people get - 2 to 3 percent.
Yes - as there should be. The tax situation? I admit I really dont see that being changed or "corrected" any time soon. Too many people benefit from the present.
So Bob, what do you define as "upper" income? Anyone above $32k? No one should pay double taxes regardless of income. A democracy is a meritocracy or it becomes a socialist experiment. Those truly in need are supported by a democracy. Unfortunately, we are becoming a society of takers rather than givers. Also, there is an enormous amount of fraud in our social support system today combined with government ineptitude. Correct these issues and deserving people and families would have the funds necessary for their support.
"So Bob, what do you define as "upper" income? Anyone above $32k?"
— So Dan, how would you define "upper" income? Anyone above $300,000? $500,000? $900,000? ($32,000 is obviously not upper.) Perhaps taxing Social Security benefits on a sliding scale starting with retirement incomes in the top 25 or 30 percent. That keeps the taxation with those who can afford it. Of course, those against taxes will object to any level of taxation.
“No one should pay double taxes regardless of income.”
— Just for accuracy’s sake, let’s note that no one is “doubled taxed” on their entire Social Security benefit for federal income taxes, contrary to what is implied by “double taxation.” First, federal income taxes are on a sliding scale of 0 to 85 percent of the benefit, depending on income. Second, recipients paid taxes during their earning years only on their own contribution, not their employers’ contributions. So employees are not “doubled taxed” on those funds. And third, the federal government contributes a portion of the benefit from sources other than payroll taxes — over their lifetimes, most people get more from Social Security than they pay in. So they’re not “double taxed” on those funds.
“Also, there is an enormous amount of fraud in our social support system today combined with government ineptitude.”
— I agree there’s fraud at all levels of government, just as there’s fraud at all levels of business and the rest of the private sector. Fraud in all areas of society should be “corrected.” But proposals to fund programs from savings gained by “cutting waste and fraud” is just a cynical cover for defunding those programs.
So sorry to hear you are tied up in this, but I did it also. 225? Right, it's all I got from my wife's over 75k in contribution to Social Security. We had planed on a retirement with both of us getting our SS, but I got 225 when she died and I am left to scramble to make up the short fall. Hillary Clinton once talked of a widows benefit, but I haven't hear anything about that since. The rules and practices of Social Security are as politics will allow them to be. We should all retire comfortably, and with the demise of fixed benefit pensions Social Security plays a bigger role than ever and yet in our political moment, of there for it, we're against it gets zero done. Let's hope we're at a turning point. At least they didn't make you wait on hold!
And they did call back an hour later. I knew I would be on the roof.
When I buried my parents several months apart a few years back I learned more than I ever wanted to know about funerals. Down in Philly, where they were from, a basic funeral was well over $10,000. That was without a hearse (people apparently don't do hearses any more) or a wake in the funeral parlor. Or the funeral lunch of course. If you need to buy a plot and headstone, add that on, too. I've heard of budget cremations as low as $3500, but I was pretty shocked overall at funeral expenses. And if someone is in nursing care, all of their money might be depleted by the time they pass, so those preplanning funeral accounts are important; you can set aside a certain amount that Medicaid won't claw back.
The other thing is, money gets locked down in the estate when someone dies. My Dad went first, and he and Mom owned everything jointly, including bank accounts, so the money was not an issue, But when Mom passed, her bank account froze. I had POA while she was alive and knew Mom wasn't going to be with us long so I moved $10,000 into a funeral account a few months before her death. I then moved more money right before she died to pay bills I didn't want to wait two years to pay while they wound down her (very) little estate; like money owed to her caregivers.
All of that is TMI, but I was shocked at how expensive it is to die. I have made no plans for myself,, but I do now have $100 per paycheck go into a set aside bank account I think of as a funeral account. Once that is big enough, I'll put it into a prepaid funeral account.
I found social security to be one of the easiest to deal with. (Verizon Wireless is still trying to bill me for my dead Dad's cell phone; Verizon was hands down the worst of them). I activated the online social security accounts for Mom and Dad (mysocialsecurity) and just did everything through that.
Sorry you are dealing with all of this.
I certainly hear the frustration. If our loved ones knew the problems they left for us to resolve. My sister-in-law passed away 18 months ago and we still have not resolved her simple estate. Very frustrating. I'm wondering how long I have to wait for the $255. Good advice on the funeral planning. That was a godsend that we did that for my mother.
Pre planning one’s funeral and putting the money in the funeral home’s trust is one of the best gifts you can leave your family. I have done both and am currently developing a list of things like what direct deposit and debits need to be stopped, passwords, list of assets etc. I hope it will make things easier for my children when the time comes.
Thank you!! I just went in and established an account in the mysocialsecurity you mentioned. We have planned green burials and have purchased the plots but now I'm realizing we need to do more for those who have to manage things when my husband and I die.
The United States, in many ways, is inhumane to the living and the deceased. I was corresponding with a friend recently and she told that she and her husband plan to move to out of the States while healthy because she wanted to die with dignity. She is not poor, but her experiences with her parents’ end of life care has disgusted her.
Yes. It is a big ugly secret that the politicians don't seem to want to touch. Kirsten Gillibrand focuses a lot on human services, including elder care, but do you hear anything about it at all from the two candidates for President? I suspect the fix is so expensive they are all afraid to go near it. Yet all of us get old and have old people in our lives. My parents were very modest income but so long as they were independent they did just fine and were quite happy. The year before they died, Mom age 88, Dad age 85 moved reluctantly into a continuum of care senior residence. In that one year, independent living for one or both a combined total of 9 months, nursing care 4 months for Dad (hospice) and assisted living for 1 month and hospice 6 weeks for Mom, their assets were depleted from $340000 including their house value, down to about $30,000, In one year. The deal was if they ran out of money they would still be cared for at the continuum of care place. They did not outlive their income, but a few months more there they would have. This is what we all face...our elders work their whole lives and are expected to bankrupt themselves in their old age to get the care they need. I think a lot of people don't realize insurance doesn't cover nursing home stays unless it is for rehab.
And I wouldn't wish the quality of that nursing care on my worst enemy. The independent living and assisted lviing was good, but the nursing care was $200 a day- not covered by insurance- and they wouldn't even take my parents to the bathroom when they needed to go. We all took turns staying in the room, and paid a companion to spend time there to make sure my parents weren't neglected. Just awful.
Yes. Just awful. Dehumanizing. Other countries manage it without breaking their bank. We could also, with the political will. Worthwhile effort usually involves some painful compromises.
So is it better that parents have assets to obtain quality care for a good portion of elder care, or have no assets and be cared for by the government??
My guess is have some assets so you can get into a decent place. The places have actuaries. When my parents moved in, they were told they needed x amount of $$ plus value of house. Like I said, my parents did not outlive their money, but came close.
The place was very good except for nursing care. It was run by the Lutherans. No need to put up a lump sum up front- a buy in- just pay month to month, no lien on the assets, the residence wanted to make sure the money was there to pay. If folks don't inappropriately dissipate their assets- live large, give gifts to children etc, once the money runs out, they get Medicaid and the place cares for them the rest of their life. The thing is, the independent living was very nice and the assisted living was amazing, but the entire reason by parents went there was if they needed that high cost nursing care. And that was just awful. But no one has a crystal ball; my parents only lived less than a year after they moved in, but it could have been years there...I will do everything I can to stay out of a nursing home, I'll tell you that much. Like the Hotel California, once you're in one, you can never leave.
And this will all change if Donald Trump becomes President and implements Project 2025. There is wording in the document under Health and Human Services, pg 468 for Medicaid, “Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.”
A lot of the elderly in Nursing homes spend down all of their money and are only able to be in Medicaid beds. If there is a limit on their benefits, where will they go?
The nursing home crisis is something no one ever talks about. We just don't think it will happen to us. But it will.
That is sad.
Besides this ridiculous $255 is an IRS rule that taxes earned income over $33,000 once you reach your Normal Retirement Age. So as many more people continue to work beyond the NRA due to the growing cost of living, they face this unfair elderly/senior tax. And the computation is complex as it uses one-half of your and your spouses SS payment as part of the calculation. So in many cases you will be paying taxes on money you have already paid into SS - double taxation. The IRS collects billions from this rule. When you question our elected officials about this situation, they say they know its unfair but can get no where in changing it because the government needs the money. You can pay taxes on up to 85% of your SS benefit if you earn a combined, jointly filed $41k. I Know because I worked full time 4 years beyond my NRA and still do part-time now but keep it under the $33k threshold less the SS benefits. No politician ever talks about this issue.
Thankfully Trump is proposing zero income tax on SS benefits!!!
Just an observation on proposals to cut taxes — I don’t think there’s been a politician in history who, when they proposed to cut taxes, also proposed what services they would reduce or eliminate to pay for it.
Agreed. Lots of govt waste out there.
And proposing to "cut waste" to justify cutting taxes is a transparent fraud.
And raising taxes to increase wasteful spending is a transparent fraud.
I think it’s important to recognize that the Social Security system, while it’s a universal benefit for most Americans, is currently designed to help the financially vulnerable.
What often gets lost in discussions of Social Security benefits is that lower-income recipients — for example, those married couples earning less than $32,000 per year — pay no federal income taxes on their benefits. And in NYS, Social Security benefits are not taxed for any recipient.
It’s appropriate for upper-income recipients to be taxed on their benefits — they can easily afford to contribute their share.
It’s not appropriate to be taxed twice on your own contributions.
The author makes a very good case for the creation of 401k-style accounts for at least the employees’ share of soc security contributions. There would then at least be a little more for the benes!!!!
What the lady at SS probably didn’t tell you is that you’ll wait the better part of a year to receive the $255.
She told me that if I filed the paperwork quickly - that day - there was a chance I might get it sooner. I did, but I am not holding my breath.
HA HA,,, Please write Elise and let us know if she ever responds. This issue is certainly NOT in her wheelhouse..it would actually do something good for her constituents...
Ken you should write to Congresswoman Stefanik, or better yet call her office in Troy and ask them to take action. I would also suggest both our NY Senators. It’s as much their issue to resolve. That being said, let’s be careful on that roof.
I had a completely different experience with Social Security when my husband passed, last December. The funeral home notified SS and benefits were stopped. After about 4 weeks, I received a form in the mail to complete, which I did. Within a month I received a final benefit directly deposited to my checking account. There wasn’t any breakdown but the amount was considerably more than $255. I am assuming there might be a pro rated monthly benefit and the death benefit. It was an easy process and I appreciated the SS office’s efficiency. ( And I am not one to praise government agencies 🥴.)
No complaint with Social Security. I tend to be proactive and not wait to be contacted so I was ahead of the curve here. Although the fact Congress has no increased the death benefit in 70 years is something I'm astounded by.
And yes, the cost of funeral’s and related costs are crazy high! I would guess they are out of the reach of many families. Sad.
It might just cover two weeks of groceries!
maybe paula collins could use $255.
Glad you didn’t fall off the roof. I didn’t have to get so deeply involved. The funeral Home (Kilmers) made the notification for me as part of the service. I just remember getting the “death benefit” a few weeks later and wondering why people were valued so little?
You are right; it is insulting and even hurtful. A number of years ago, Hilary Clinton introduced a much larger “widow’s benefit” which I was sort of glad went nowhere because it was absolutely sexist. I would suggest returning some of the money paid in to the system—maybe everything the individual contributed and let them keep the employer’s part—I understand they have encumbered much of the SS fund and it is no longer totally fluid. However, if you want action, why would you contact a minority legislator instead of taking it to Schumer and Gillibrand?
Well, because Elise Stefanik is my direct representative in Congress. I doubt Schumer or Gillibrand will pay much attention to me. It used to be your local rep might at least listen. Of course that is no longer true either unless it benefits her career in some way.
It seems like the death benefit should only kick in for those who really need it. If you had lilfe insurance or substantial assets, then the $255 is not needed at all.
Considering the difficulty (apparently) of just getting a cost of living increase for senior citizens, I guess we shouldnt be surprised that the "death" benefit hasnt increased in 70 years!!
There seems to be more concern (?) about our countrie's millionaires and billionaires ability to "survive" being taxed in the same manner as people who currently either work one to three jobs just to pay their bills and get by. I really have to wonder why the h**l that is?
I'll put this link here to today's Popular Information blog. I found it interesting if not uplifting!
https://popular.info/p/a-new-government-report-reveals-the?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=b9ign&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I do believe there was a healthy increase this past year due to inflation - 4 percent I think - which is better than most raises people get - 2 to 3 percent.
Yes - as there should be. The tax situation? I admit I really dont see that being changed or "corrected" any time soon. Too many people benefit from the present.
Definitely write dear Elise and see what happens. lol. What a joke.
So Bob, what do you define as "upper" income? Anyone above $32k? No one should pay double taxes regardless of income. A democracy is a meritocracy or it becomes a socialist experiment. Those truly in need are supported by a democracy. Unfortunately, we are becoming a society of takers rather than givers. Also, there is an enormous amount of fraud in our social support system today combined with government ineptitude. Correct these issues and deserving people and families would have the funds necessary for their support.
"So Bob, what do you define as "upper" income? Anyone above $32k?"
— So Dan, how would you define "upper" income? Anyone above $300,000? $500,000? $900,000? ($32,000 is obviously not upper.) Perhaps taxing Social Security benefits on a sliding scale starting with retirement incomes in the top 25 or 30 percent. That keeps the taxation with those who can afford it. Of course, those against taxes will object to any level of taxation.
“No one should pay double taxes regardless of income.”
— Just for accuracy’s sake, let’s note that no one is “doubled taxed” on their entire Social Security benefit for federal income taxes, contrary to what is implied by “double taxation.” First, federal income taxes are on a sliding scale of 0 to 85 percent of the benefit, depending on income. Second, recipients paid taxes during their earning years only on their own contribution, not their employers’ contributions. So employees are not “doubled taxed” on those funds. And third, the federal government contributes a portion of the benefit from sources other than payroll taxes — over their lifetimes, most people get more from Social Security than they pay in. So they’re not “double taxed” on those funds.
“Also, there is an enormous amount of fraud in our social support system today combined with government ineptitude.”
— I agree there’s fraud at all levels of government, just as there’s fraud at all levels of business and the rest of the private sector. Fraud in all areas of society should be “corrected.” But proposals to fund programs from savings gained by “cutting waste and fraud” is just a cynical cover for defunding those programs.