Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Need a pension? Say, `I do' (Young gals wed old guys, soak SS for a lifetime)
LA Times ^ | April 26, 2006 | Barbara Garson

Posted on 07/27/2006 12:18:29 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o

"Match boomers with New Dealers and the benefits flow."

CAROL HAS BEEN my political mobilizer for more than 40 years. In college, I marched on the civil rights picket lines she organized. After graduation, her peace group bused me to Washington every few years for another "Get Out of ___ " demonstration. Then she joined the staff of a global-justice organization that got me to that big WTO protest in Seattle.

But the last time I dropped in at her office, she pulled me into her cubicle and asked if I could help her..[Always a volunteer activist, now she needed a "real" job and insurance.]

"Hey, wait a minute," I said. "You don't need a fundraiser. You need a matchmaker!"

"Let's not go into my love life," Carol said.

"It's not a question of love," I explained, "it's demographics...

The first octogenarian I approached took to the idea immediately...

I hadn't thought about matchmaking for the intern on the staff. He was in his 20s and couldn't collect a pension for decades. Besides, he was a darling, and we all hoped he'd find a real sweetheart. But the 92-year-old female volunteer didn't want to be left out. She had health insurance that covered a spouse.

"The poor kid coughs all winter," she pointed out. "Let him get a good checkup for once. Then he could divorce me. I won't contest it."

So we held a triple wedding at City Hall. Afterward, everyone shook hands, and six securely pensioned, insured individuals went home their separate ways.

My scheme can work for any small group. ...

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: benefits; fraud; marriage; pension; scam; widows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Traveling_Free

You're right. Also, this says that the 20's man was marrying the 92 year-old for her health insurance. I would think that would be medicare and would be hers alone. Am I wrong?


21 posted on 07/27/2006 12:39:08 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
All I can say, Barbara, is if this is your idea of a retirement plan, your ass is doomed. Pension benefits and social security for someone who retired 25 or 30 years ago won't even pay for cat food by the time you're helpless and in your dotage.

And you got a really nasty bunch of Gen-Xer's who are gonna do everything they can to take that social security away from you when they outnumber boomers.

Hoped ya saved a lot of money when you were unemployed. Better start digging out all those vintage tie-dyed t-shirts and start peddling them on E-Bay...

22 posted on 07/27/2006 12:41:26 PM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Last I heard, there was still one Civil War (War of the rebellion) wife alive. THey thought the last one dies and someone else stepped forward last year.


23 posted on 07/27/2006 12:46:58 PM PDT by cyclotic (Support MS research-Sponsor my Ride-https://www.nationalmssociety.org//MIG/personal/default.asp?pa=4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: twigs
Nope - you're right

No one is eligible for survivor's benefits including medicare unless they are already eligible for Social Security either because they had reached retirement age or became disabled. Survivor's benefits - collecting off a deceased spouse's SS record as a widow or widower - only come into effect if the payment amount is more then you would normally receive on your own SS record.

Why did everybody suddenly decide to believe the LA Times?

LOL
24 posted on 07/27/2006 12:50:37 PM PDT by Traveling_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

I was just mentioning the ones the VA was paying out on.


25 posted on 07/27/2006 12:50:59 PM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Here's a modest proposal: Match boomers with New Dealers and the benefits flow.

Wow...is this the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, or just another con, a way to stick it to the Man?

26 posted on 07/27/2006 12:51:00 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Yea, I think she's getting a pension. I know the one who died last year was still getting one.


27 posted on 07/27/2006 12:52:20 PM PDT by cyclotic (Support MS research-Sponsor my Ride-https://www.nationalmssociety.org//MIG/personal/default.asp?pa=4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Traveling_Free

So this 20-year-old man has a 92-year-old wife and no health insurance?


28 posted on 07/27/2006 12:54:15 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think the point of this article (and I would assume the play) is to make fun of traditional marriage.


29 posted on 07/27/2006 12:55:03 PM PDT by tdewey10 (It's time for the party to return to the principles of President Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
Oh, no. This is not satire at all. Garson goes on talk shows to chortle about how many's the time she's served as May-December matchmaker so as to soak the pensions and Social Security for a lifetime.

And isn't this the whole point of Domestic Partneships, Civil Unions for gays and all the rest? To get "partners" into health plans, pensions, etc.?

Very few gays are into lifelong quasi-marital fidelity. But benefits! Benefits! B-e-n-e-f-i-t-s ! !

30 posted on 07/27/2006 12:55:25 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Traveling_Free

Thanks for the details. Actually, Garson's example #1 was a 1960's drop-outs who opted to be a full-time volunteer/activist, so that would make the gal in her 50's. So I guess that would be an "August-December" marriage.

Her other example was a 20-year-old "marrying" a nonagenarian, not for SS but for health insurance coverage. That works.

I wonder if there's a law against soliciting for or cooperating in this sort of fraud...


31 posted on 07/27/2006 1:02:45 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: twigs

twigs wrote:
So this 20-year-old man has a 92-year-old wife and no health insurance?


When the 92-year-old wife of a 20-year-old-man dies, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS period.

No medicare - no monthly check.

When he retires (62) or becomes disabled ( and is over 50), if the SS payment on his wife's record would be more than the payment on his SS record then he could receive her benefits as a widower instead of his own. Either way he would then become eligble for medicare.

But until he's old or disabled he gets nada!!

The whole premise of her article is wrong.

LA Times LOL


32 posted on 07/27/2006 1:03:18 PM PDT by Traveling_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Polygamy is the way to go! And incest! And homosexulity!

Grandpa can marry all of his grand-daughters and grand-sons and let them each receive survivor benefits.

Then there's the family dog, too ...

33 posted on 07/27/2006 1:04:19 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("He hits me, he cries, he runs to the court and sues me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: twigs
"...this says that the 20's man was marrying the 92 year-old for her health insurance. I would think that would be medicare and would be hers alone. Am I wrong?

Could be private insurance with family (dependent) coverage, right?

34 posted on 07/27/2006 1:05:52 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
I once read in the mid 1980's that from May/December marriages that at teh time the VA was still paying pensions and benefits on about 90 to 100 Civil War (War of Northern AgressionSouthern Secession) veterans widows.
35 posted on 07/27/2006 1:05:57 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
the VA was still paying pensions and benefits on about 90 to 100 Civil War (War of Northern Agression) veterans widows.

And still paying although to a much smaller group.

36 posted on 07/27/2006 1:06:26 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone
Lefties always want to use someone else's money because they don't know how to earn and manage their own. They are as useful as pet rocks. Hmmm. Actually the pet rock is more useful because it does less damage to the economy.
37 posted on 07/27/2006 1:07:15 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

I dunno, sounds like a nice old age fringe. Now where did I put my last social security statement? I need to be talking it up with the ladies :).


38 posted on 07/27/2006 1:07:19 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Traveling_Free

I think in the 20 - 90 matchup she's talking about a private insurer.


39 posted on 07/27/2006 1:08:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Well, crap.

People wonder why health care costs are soaring...this kind of BS doesn't help. These people lobby for benefits, get them, and then abuse them...that's a real smart plan. If this gets too commonplace, companies are likely to change their benefit policies, perhaps going to far as to cut them. The real losers will be the people who did NOT abuse their benefits and then loose them because of some wise guys trying to scam the system. Then people will complain about how they have no benefits and the almighty government will step in to fix all the problems. It's a downward sprial.

However, I don't think that doomsday scenario is really all that likely. Most companies will probably just start imposing new rules, like you must be married to the person for a certain length of time before retirement.

On a different note, I must take issue with your claim that "Very few gays are into lifelong quasi-marital fidelity." I have a couple gay people in my family, and both have been in relationships that have lasted over 25 years (over 35 for one couple). I personally think marriage should not be any business of the state, only of religious institutions, and any two individuals should be able to enter a legal contract that is equivalent to marriage (i.e. a civil union).

But that's not really relevant here. Any couple, gay or straight, that is in a committed relationship should be eligible for benefits, and many companies have those sorts of policies. The concern is people scamming them by getting married to people they are not in domestic relationships with.


40 posted on 07/27/2006 1:35:27 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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