I know it is unpopular to those with low income to be hit with a flat 10% income tax but consider this. I have seen that people are more invested in something and the outcome when they have a personal investment. If you are paying 10% of your hard earned income as Federal income tax, you will be more concerned about how those dollars are spent. You will tend to vote more, take the time to research where the money is going, etc. . . because of the impact it has on your income. It truly is your government and your country when you own part of it. I say this from a perspective of helping those in need and seeing the difference between those who have no problem getting a hand out and those who prefer a hand up. Economically I think a flat 10% income tax across the board would surprise people with how much more revenue would come in to pay a balanced budget required to be passed and approved October 1 each year instead of pushed back until January and then again depending on the politics at the time. The tax should perform its function of supporting the government and not be used for something it is not intended to accomplish which is social reform or social adjustments. The budget should be finalized by October 1 period, end of story. No budget no government until one is approved.

Two questions and answers, copied and pasted from the Social Security Administration web site: Question How long must you be married to a spouse to collect benefits when the spouse dies? Answer A person can qualify for widow's or widower's benefits if he or she was married to the deceased worker for at least the 9 months just before the worker died. (A surviving divorced spouse must have been married to the worker for 10 years immediately before the date the final divorce became effective.) The 9-month duration-of-marriage requirement is waived if the insured person's death was accidental or if it occurred in the line of duty while he or she was a member of a uniformed service serving on active duty or if the widow(er) who was married to the insured person at the time of the insured's death was previously married to and divorced from him or her and the previous marriage had lasted 9 months; or if the worker was precluded from divorcing a prior institutionalized spouse under State law and married the widow(er) claimant within 60 days after the prior spouse's death. The first three of these exceptions to the 9-month duration-of-marriage requirement do not apply if at the time of the marriage the worker could not reasonably have been expected to live for 9 months. The insured person's death is defined as accidental only if he or she received bodily injuries through violent, external, and accidental means and, as a direct result of the bodily injuries and independent of all other causes, died within 3 months after the day on which the injuries were received. AS an alternative to the 9-month duration-of-marriage requirement and exceptions, a claimant may qualify as the worker's widow(er) if he or she:  Is the biological parent of the worker's biological child;  While married to the worker, legally adopted his/her child before the child attained age 18;  Is the parent of a child who was legally adopted by the worker while married to the claimant and before the child attained age 18; or  Was married to the worker at the time both of them legally adopted a child under age 18. Question If I receive widow's benefits and remarry, how does this affect my benefits? Answer In general, you cannot receive survivors benefits if you remarry before the age of 60 unless the latter marriage ends, whether by death, divorce, or annulment. If you remarry after age 60 (50 if disabled), you can still collect benefits on your former spouse's record. When you reach age 62 or older, you may get retirement benefits on the record of your new spouse if they are higher. Your remarriage would have no effect on the benefits being paid to your children.

I think Social Security will be bankrupt pretty soon. As Rosemary pointed out, most people are collecting far more than they ever put in and it can't be sustained. But you also can't shut people off because for a vast majority of seniors, it's their only income. I suspect there will be reform in the future. Not because the government actually cares about grandma and grandpa but because there's a huge portion of the electoral base who will be pretty angry if they lose their benefits or are told there's nothing left. THAT will be the only thing that dictates a change - fear of losing an election. As a disclosure I'll say I'm not talking about anyone in this thread and I'm not angry at people who receive SS. It's the plan and it's unfairness that bothers me. Just general annoyance at having money stolen from me every paycheck under the promise that it will support me in 40 years when I need it. Yeah right. And yes, I do consider it stealing because it's mandatory and there is NO guarantee that it will be available when you're due to collect. The irony is that if it were a private company running this instead of the government, I don't think it would be legal! Imagine the electric company deciding to collect $100 extra from everyone every month. This is a mandatory charge but they say that in another 20 years, you will never have to pay another electric bill. However, there's small print saying that you will only get free electric if there is any money left to cover it, and if the money is gone, you will have to keep paying for your own electric and all of the previous tens of thousands that was collected from you will not be returned. Can you say lawsuit? lol

Sorry for your difficulty in understanding an accent on the phone. I had an aunt who spoke with a strong German/New York accent that left me baffled when young, but gifted me with being pretty good with accents. I do need time with the person and seeing them in person definitely helps. I've worked with (dental) patients who are reluctant to speak because of their accents. I tell 'em keep talking, the more I hear them, the better I get at understanding them. Usually once they realize someone is really listening, I can't shut them up! (not that I want to) Garden gal 48 I agree about speed. Slower is better. They may not understand me well either. Anglophillia-- you may have hit the nail on the head. I once worked at a resort where the maintenance man was especially interested in a sore throat I'd complained about the day before. A co-worker explained he'd been a doctor in Cuba. Couldn't practice in the US of course. Came over on a makeshift raft. Was happier being a maintenance man in the US than a Dr. in Cuba. Kind of a eye opener for me. And yet-- Your Dr. should realize your limited energy and honor your request to not have to fill out a lengthy medical history in such a exhausting way. Ask to have them mail the forms to you so you can fill them out at home and bring them with you. This is not an unusual request. You can fill it out at your leisure as time and energy allow. You will know everything is correct. The assistant can enter the data into the computer from your form and you can avoid the situation.