Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A lesson in economics. Learning from Obituaries....
patriotaction.net ^ | November 4, 2012 | unknown and via email

Posted on 03/10/2013 4:45:44 AM PDT by Las Vegas Dave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Las Vegas Dave
Ol' Larmondo bought it back in 2004.
21 posted on 03/10/2013 6:19:36 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave
Larmenshell
Lamonshea
Larmomdriel
Larmerja


22 posted on 03/10/2013 6:32:59 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

Not to worry, he will still cast 10 votes for Obama in the next election - Michelle Obama.


23 posted on 03/10/2013 6:46:53 AM PDT by Bon mots (Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Aha! So it was Bush' s fault! :)
24 posted on 03/10/2013 6:49:13 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
I was curious about that too, so I went to the Social Security Website and saw this:

"Your unmarried children who are under 18 (up to age 19 if attending elementary or secondary school full time) can be eligible to receive Social Security benefits when you die. And your child can get benefits at any age if he or she was disabled before age 22 and remains disabled. Besides your natural children, your stepchildren, grandchildren, step grandchildren or adopted children may receive benefits under certain circumstances.

A child under age 18 (19 if still in elementary or secondary school) or disabled -- 75 percent of the father's annual income.

There's a limit to the amount that family members can receive each month. The limit varies, but it is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of the basic benefit rate."

So if I read that, it is possible (according to the site) that the mother receives a maximum of 75% of her children's father's annual income if she is not working and caring for them. The maximum a single child would get would be 75% of the father's income up to the age of 18. if there are multiple children, as a group they would get 150-180% altogether of their father's income.

So, if the father made $100K a year for a certain number of years, then at death, his wife would get $75K, and his kid would get $75K. Depending on how many "Credits" have been accumulated by the father's work, the more the aggregate group of children would get, but likely if four or more, the maximum amount for all of them would be $180K per year.

The thing I don't understand, is what if the father doesn't work? Do they count unemployment benefits or any other kind of government assistance towards the annual income when calculating how much survivors get? There was a small paragraph that indicates there is a minimum amount of some kind: "...The number of credits you need to have family members be eligible for survivors benefits depends on your age when you die. The younger you are, the fewer credits you need, but nobody needs more than 40 credits (10 years of work). Under a special rule, we can pay benefits to your children and your spouse who is caring for the children even if you don't have the number of credits needed. They can get benefits if you have credits for one and one-half year's work (6 credits) in the three years just before your death.

I bet as sure as God made little green apples, that there is an accommodation for someone whose deceased "spouse", "partner" or "father" has no recorded income.

25 posted on 03/10/2013 7:12:50 AM PDT by rlmorel (1793 French Jacobins and 2012 American Liberals have a lot in common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

“Nothing good ever happens on Martin Luther King Blvd.”
Oh I dunno,sometimes a parasite gets shot dead there.......


26 posted on 03/10/2013 7:20:02 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

OK, but the part I quoted was about welfare they’re already allegedly receiving, not Social Security.


27 posted on 03/10/2013 7:20:23 AM PDT by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Ah. My mistake...funny, I just fixated on the SS part, not the welfare part.


28 posted on 03/10/2013 7:26:45 AM PDT by rlmorel (1793 French Jacobins and 2012 American Liberals have a lot in common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

And all will be life-long DemocRat voters.


29 posted on 03/10/2013 7:35:08 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave
Doing a search on this is interesting, because to some leftists (like this libtard at "Cop In The Hood": Right wing lies...) this specific case is proof of right wing idiocy, where we just willy-nilly take an email as gospel truth and post it.

(Heh, I guess the difference between liberals and conservatives is that we take emails as gospel truth, and they take the oral effluence of liberal politicians and race baiters as gospel truth)

But that aside, there is a lot here to question, but there is no doubt that given the way the laws are written, and the way the bureaucracy is administered, there are huge swaths of money that are given to welfare recipients with a wink and a nudge.

"Okay, Lamonshea, how much did the father of your children make? Oh, you don't have his W-2 forms? Okay, how much do you THINK he made? We can put that down and figure out how to quantify that later..."

30 posted on 03/10/2013 7:52:12 AM PDT by rlmorel (1793 French Jacobins and 2012 American Liberals have a lot in common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

!! Snort !! — a FINE comment, LIM.


31 posted on 03/10/2013 9:33:41 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Having a street named after MLK is an ingenious way of telling you that you’re in the wrong neighborhood.


32 posted on 03/10/2013 9:44:24 AM PDT by red-dawg (We need to keep the House or Obama will NEVER leave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro; Las Vegas Dave
"...Nothing good ever happens on Martin Luther King Blvd..."

Good observation - In Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis, MLK Blvd resembles Beirut ....................................................... FRegards

33 posted on 03/10/2013 2:02:58 PM PDT by gonzo ( Buy more ammo, dammit! You should already have the firearms ... FRegards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave; windcliff

Wow, this would provide Maury with several weeks of “You ARE the father” and “You are NOT the father” shows.


34 posted on 03/10/2013 9:09:29 PM PDT by I Drive Too Fast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson