Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aisling207 t1_jbh8f6f wrote

Reply to comment by psychcaptain in Pennsylvania has No. 4 highest tax rates in U.S.: report by dissolutewastrel

The person who pays the tax is the person who inherits. If one half of an unmarried couple dies, the other owes PA 15% of their partner’s share of their home and bank accounts.

5

psychcaptain t1_jbh8l5t wrote

Unmarried seems like an easy problem to solve, doesn't it?

Honestly, if a couple can be bother to do the bare minimum, I am not going to bother caring.

−7

Aisling207 t1_jbh96za wrote

That’s a very uninformed comment. Some people would lose pension and/or social security benefits that they need to live on if they remarry. Or the ability to be buried with a military vet former spouse.

3

psychcaptain t1_jbha2ev wrote

So, basically, they want to have their cake and eat it?

Yeah, I don't have much sympathy for people trying to game the system.

−4

Aisling207 t1_jbhbh6p wrote

So a widow trying to scrape by on a pension they’d lose if they remarry is gaming the system? I guess widows should retreat into perpetual mourning and never find another relationship to satisfy your “sympathy” requirements. Good grief. Literally.

2

psychcaptain t1_jbhcdlb wrote

I don't think Pensions are written the way you think they are.

Those that are a based on the idea of 'double dipping' where the money is a last resort. If you happen to get married, than the last resort shouldn't be necessary any more.

0

Aisling207 t1_jbhdhxs wrote

I’m very familiar with pensions, including civil service, military, and private company pensions, as well as social security, thanks to helping several older relatives deal with their reduced pensions and social security benefits upon the death of a spouse. I honestly have no idea what you mean by “double dipping” or “last resort.” Do you know any retirees or widows?

Perhaps you think everyone should have an IRA or 401(k)? Well, many current retirees spent their main working years before those were the main way to save for retirement. And many people spent years out of the workforce caring for children or elderly relatives (for no pay).

It’s easy to be unsympathetic to hypothetical situations. When you actually see people struggling, it gets real.

2

psychcaptain t1_jbhflr7 wrote

I am unsympathetic to Babies Boomers who voted GOP for decades, and now getting hurt by their own rules.

I do now a bit about Social Security Benefits though. As a widow, you get up to 75% of your spouses PIA as long as it doesn't exceed your benefits. Homemakers are screwed by this, but so is everyone without an income, whether you are married or not. God, if you have been disabled for a while, that's a lot of potential income you have lost for Social Security Benefits. You do get COLA.

But, I digress. As widow (er), you can get up to 75% of your spouses PIA, as long as it doesn't exceed your own Payments. Depending on the situation, that should be more than half the income people usually get, which makes some sense, because it's supporting half the people.

Here's the thing, if you remarry before 60, you might lose it (unless you divorce again), but if you remarry after 60 you don't.

If you remarry before 60, hopefully you are working and making your way in the world, and of reliant on your dead husbands pension.

−1

Aisling207 t1_jbhh4cp wrote

Oh, cool, I see we’ve moved into the ASSumption phase here. News flash: not all Silent Generation and Baby Boomers voted GOP. Not all of them lived in PA for their entire voting/working lives.

Social security is one thing. Pensions are absolutely lost upon remarriage. And the thing is, half of one’s expenses don’t disappear when one spouse dies. Some expenses decrease, but not all, and often not by half. And some widowed spouses are caring for minor children.

But, whatever. The fact is that one half of an unmarried couple, whether it is a romantic couple, relatives or roommates should not have to lose their home to pay the state when someone dies.

3