Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule of 65

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rule of 65

    Hi... on the date of our separation, we were married 15 years and she was 49. I've been told the Rule of 65 will certainly apply. She is very healthy and certainly able to work, but became extremely comfortable with the "stay at home" role.


    Essentially, what I am now being told, she is not required to work (rule of 65) and I'm responsible for SS for life. I won't get into the unfairness of her being allowed full retirement on my dime for the next 40 years (I'm privately employed and have zero pension... good RRSPs though)... but I do have a couple of questions:
    1. How "hard and fast" is the rule of 65 in this type of situation ?
    2. Will I ever be able to retire ? The way this is structured, I will have to save for my retirement, and also save enough to pay her for life..
    Is this really what I'm up against ??

  • #2
    It seems that she may have permanent career damage - it is hard for her to get to an income level should would have had had the both of you decided she should have kept working.

    So life SS may be reasonable.

    However, she has an obligation to try to get off of it, however that can be hard to enforce. Hopefully she has some pride and will try to achieve it, but it may not be possible and marriage is a financial contract that left her disadvantaged when it comes to earning potential.

    For support purposes you should be able to assume that she works full time minimum wage, or goes to school to get some skills etc.
    Last edited by billm; 09-29-2012, 12:34 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      not necessarily... many other factors are weighed

      Comment


      • #4
        rule of 65 (just barely) but your marriage would not be considered long term in my opinion. This would be a good example of a case where the OP might be best to look at a small cash settlement and limited SS with increasing imputing income and a review of the SS after 3 yr period. Just my opinion but I don't think the OP will be on the hook forever by any stretch of the imagination.

        I was married very young and divorced at 53 + 30 yr marriage = 83 (much higher than the rule of 65). My income is imputed for 5 yrs at a graduating scale which is pretty normal. Spousal is unlimited. Our divorce is reviewed after 5 yrs. No children. The fact that the OP' marriage was only 15 yrs would be a very important factor.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by billm View Post
          It seems that she may have permanent career damage - it is hard for her to get to an income level should would have had had the both of you decided she should have kept working.
          Well... I would have been most happy for her to go back to work after the kids were in school. However household cleaning and shopping were apparently so overwhelming that prevented any sort of return to the workforce. I cooked, did laundry, and FULLY participated in all aspects of the kids lives.

          "both" decided she should have kept working ?? how do I answer that ?

          << Im the OP.. sorry for the delayed reply folks... I'm just getting used to this fourm.. wish I discovered it a while ago >>

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by someguy
            on the date of our separation, we were married 15 years and she was 49
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            rule of 65 (just barely)
            49 + 15 = 64

            Is my math off?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Janus View Post
              49 + 15 = 64

              Is my math off?


              As I'm slowly discovering, laws aren't really laws, they're just "guidelines"... and I should prepare for 64=65 in the eyes of the law.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm going to try that with my pension plan. They want a 90 factor (age + years of service), but when I get close I'll tell them that the 90 is really just a guideline, so they should just pay me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  49+15 = 64 (might be shy of the 65 by a matter of months- OP could let us know). I think the fact that the marriage was only 15 yrs would weight more than anything in determining SS - I could be totally incorrect though and it might be worth your while to do some research.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the biggest factor will be whether she worked through the marriage, did her career suffer, will she be able catch up in terms of pension. Look at those factors and you can argue for or against.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I won't get into the unfairness of her being allowed full retirement on my dime for the next 40 years (I'm privately employed and have zero pension... good RRSPs though)
                      Equalize the RRSPs, if you don't have an income (pensions being an income) then spousal support will likely die.

                      You are not likely to be expected to work into your 70's to provide her with spousal support; equalization will fund her retirement if you are in a similar financial position.

                      Comment

                      Our Divorce Forums
                      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                      Working...
                      X