SSI Disability income and support

[LdiJ]

I'm glad the Judge saw the truth and made a fair decision. No matter what your ex, or her attorney tried to claim, her SSI would definately be decreased, possibly to the point of not recieving any at all. The Judge realized that ordering SS would have done more harm than good for both parties.

But perhaps damaged the taxpayers..

 

[wolfthing2000]

But perhaps damaged the taxpayers..

You also pay into a SS fund. If you become disabled as she did,
you also have a right to your money.

I think we all tend to forget where that SS money comes from in the first place. We earn that by working.

 

[LdiJ]

You also pay into a SS fund. If you become disabled as she did,
you also have a right to your money.

I think we all tend to forget where that SS money comes from in the first place. We earn that by working.

Yes, but by taking SSDI early, well before retirement age, your ex will take out much more than she and her employers put in.

 

[mistoffolees]

You also pay into a SS fund. If you become disabled as she did,
you also have a right to your money.

I think we all tend to forget where that SS money comes from in the first place. We earn that by working.

LD's point is still valid.

SSDI and alimony should be completely separate issues. IF she is entitled to SSDI, then she is entitled to it and that's what the system is set up for.

OTOH, IF her support should have been your responsibility and she got dumped into SSDI in order to save you money, then that's an abuse of the system.

The judge SHOULD HAVE determined whether you should be paying alimony without any regard to whether it would affect her other benefits. Either you owe alimony or you don't. "Well, he owes alimony, but we'll let the taxpayers pick up the tab" isn't a valid response.

 

[Bali Hai]

LD's point is still valid.

SSDI and alimony should be completely separate issues. IF she is entitled to SSDI, then she is entitled to it and that's what the system is set up for.

OTOH, IF her support should have been your responsibility and she got dumped into SSDI in order to save you money, then that's an abuse of the system.

The judge SHOULD HAVE determined whether you should be paying alimony without any regard to whether it would affect her other benefits. Either you owe alimony or you don't. "Well, he owes alimony, but we'll let the taxpayers pick up the tab" isn't a valid response.

Whether someone "owes" alimony or not is a subjective decision meathead.

You can argue that the judge made the wrong decision, and, I can argue that the judge made the right decision!!

If they were NEVER married, she would collect the same SSDI anyway, so what's your beef?? Let me guess, the judge didn't order involuntary servitude on the OP as the women libbers would want??

Get this absurd notion out of your head that men owe and need to pay women just because the woman married the man and she has a uterus!!

 

[Bali Hai]

Yes, but by taking SSDI early, well before retirement age, your ex will take out much more than she and her employers put in.

If a man marries five lazy women and remains married to each one over ten years, SS now pays him AND five other people at retirement. These five women didn't put a dime into SS and I've never heard you object to this!!

You see a way to screw the OP because he's a man.

Well guess what?? The judge didn't see it that way!!

 

[mistoffolees]

Whether someone "owes" alimony or not is a subjective decision meathead.

You can argue that the judge made the wrong decision, and, I can argue that the judge made the right decision!!

If they were NEVER married, she would collect the same SSDI anyway, so what's your beef?? Let me guess, the judge didn't order involuntary servitude on the OP as the women libbers would want??

Get this absurd notion out of your head that men owe and need to pay women just because the woman married the man and she has a uterus!!

No one said she was owed alimony.

My statement is that the judge should have determined whether alimony was appropriate without regard to whether it would affect SSDI. Either alimony was appropriate or it wasn't.

By your logic, we should just stop awarding alimony at all. After all, people can always go on welfare, instead. Oh, wait. That IS your intent.

 

[mistoffolees]

If a man marries five lazy women and remains married to each one over ten years, SS now pays him AND five other people at retirement. These five women didn't put a dime into SS and I've never heard you object to this!!

You see a way to screw the OP because he's a man.

Well guess what?? The judge didn't see it that way!!

I see. So you're saying that judges are always right.

So when are you going to stop whining about being treated unfairly? After all, you're saying that judges are always right.

 

[Bali Hai]

No one said she was owed alimony.

My statement is that the judge should have determined whether alimony was appropriate without regard to whether it would affect SSDI. Either alimony was appropriate or it wasn't.

By your logic, we should just stop awarding alimony at all. After all, people can always go on welfare, instead. Oh, wait. That IS your intent.

My logic is that we stop awarding alimony in just about all divorces and people can always get a JOB!!

Just because someone was married doesn't maen you have a license to get out of paying your taxes bonehead!!

You would be taking care of the deadbeat if they never married anyway!!

You just see a way to stick someone else with your responsibility!!

 

[mistoffolees]

My logic is that we stop awarding alimony in just about all divorces and people can always get a JOB!!

Just because someone was married doesn't maen you have a license to get out of paying your taxes bonehead!!

You would be taking care of the deadbeat if they never married anyway!!

You just see a way to stick someone else with your responsibility!!

Wow. Just wow.

You really need to get some counseling if you're so bitter and hate-filled so many years after your divorce.

 

[Gracie3787]

But perhaps damaged the taxpayers..

Not really in this situation. I read all of the OP's posts, him and ex were married 8 years. His ex was already disabled and on SSI/SSDI when they married. If she had become disabled during the marriage and was not recieving SSI, and only began recieving it due to marital seperation I could see where it would be a burden on the taxpayers. But according to the OP ex was already recieving SSI and it has NOT increased due to seperation.

 

[LdiJ]

Not really in this situation. I read all of the OP's posts, him and ex were married 8 years. His ex was already disabled and on SSI/SSDI when they married. If she had become disabled during the marriage and was not recieving SSI, and only began recieving it due to marital seperation I could see where it would be a burden on the taxpayers. But according to the OP ex was already recieving SSI and it has NOT increased due to seperation.

That's a very valid point.

 

[mistoffolees]

Not really in this situation. I read all of the OP's posts, him and ex were married 8 years. His ex was already disabled and on SSI/SSDI when they married. If she had become disabled during the marriage and was not recieving SSI, and only began recieving it due to marital seperation I could see where it would be a burden on the taxpayers. But according to the OP ex was already recieving SSI and it has NOT increased due to seperation.

That seems correct in this case.

But what about the more general case such as one where alimony would reduce the recipient's government payments (welfare, SSI, etc)?

I would argue that IF alimony would otherwise be awarded, then it should be awarded even if it reduces the other person's government. Bali is arguing that as long as the person would receive government money, that should be their primary source of income and alimony (one might make the same argument about child support, but I believe it would not be considered in setting disability income, so it's moot) should be waived if it would reduce the payment from the government.

I realize that's hypothetical, but it is an important distinction that's worth some thought.

 

[Bali Hai]

That seems correct in this case.

But what about the more general case such as one where alimony would reduce the recipient's government payments (welfare, SSI, etc)?

That's what alimony is pretty much all about isn't it?? Sticking some poor slob with the responsibility of supporting a lazy bum so you don't have to!!

Well guess what is evolving out of all these absurd alimony laws?? Smart men are refusing to marry!! And this is going to spread to the stupid men eventually!!

How are you going to protect your wallet when this happens genius??

I would argue that IF alimony would otherwise be awarded, then it should be awarded even if it reduces the other person's government. Bali is arguing that as long as the person would receive government money, that should be their primary source of income and alimony (one might make the same argument about child support, but I believe it would not be considered in setting disability income, so it's moot) should be waived if it would reduce the payment from the government.

I realize that's hypothetical, but it is an important distinction that's worth some thought.

Think about this genius, what came first, the chicken or the egg??

If someone is already rightfully collecting a government benefit, why should judges with any sense at all order alimony to reduce the burden on the tax payors??

When there is nobody left to screw into paying alimony, what will you advocate next? Fire up the ovens and start burning the chaff because you don't want your taxes increased??

I had a friend with a long term marriage (more than 20 years) and the wife applied and starting collecting SSDI DURING the divorce proccedings.

The judge DID NOT order alimony that might have otherwise been ordered. You know why bonehead?? Because she already had a LIGITIMATE income equal to or more than the alimony order would have been!! Some guys can fall into a bucket of stink and come out smelling like a rose!!

 

[mistoffolees]

You can always tell when someone doesn't have any rational arguments. They lace their entire post with names like 'meathead' or 'bonehead.

Or their user ID is Bali Hai.

Or both.