I got only SSI because the judge ruled that my disability started more than 5 years after I quit working. I quit working in 1996. The judge ruled that my disability didn't start until 2002. So it was ruled that my disability had started more than 5 years after I last had a job. This 5 year limit made me inelegible for disability benifits. But I was still elegible for SSI. SSI is based on household income. So Cindy can only make a certain amount before my SSI check is reduced. SSI is a maximum of $521 per month. If Cindy makes over $600 in a month, then that amount is reduced for us. The $600 amount is derived from a formula that takes into account household expenses such as rent, utilities, child support, etc. They base each month's check on what household income was last year. Or what it is projected to be. And we have to periodically send in Cindy's paycheck stubs. If they estimate a month high, and Cindy's actual income is lower, they will make it up. This month, based on last years income, I only get a little over $300. But Cindy will still make under $600. So sometime in the next few months they will send us the difference between this month's check and $521. You SSI and disability checks are retroactive. The payments will be for the period of time from the day your disability started. So if it takes 2 years to go thru the process of applying, you will get the payments for all that time back to when you became disabled. If you get approved you will get a really big backpay check at the beginning. This will be the back pay. They split mine into two checks. If you used a lawyer to help with your claim, he can only charge up to 25% of the backpay. You will get a letter from SS telling you how much he can charge you. I was told it is very hard to get approved for a physical disability. The questions for them is "is there any job you can do". They consider if you can sit at a desk and work then you can get a job. The standard was even higher for when I applied to have my student loans discharged because of disability. They told me unless you are comatose you can forget it. I was denied and I am going to see what other options I have. Pooh Bear

I'm a teacher too, and I can give you some advice on some of these topics. I am 100% sure we're not in the same state because you make more money than I do (though I have 24 years experience). - First, you sound like you're doing very well for your age. You should pat yourself on the back for realizing the importance of saving and thinking about retirement well before most people your age. - I'll second the point about talking to your potential fiancée about finances ahead of time. Do not just assume it'll all work out. - Buying a house is a sound investment. I assume you'll sell your current paid-for house, so you'll have about 120K to put down on a new one -- excellent. Even if she brings little to the table for this project, the two of you should be able to knock out the borrowed 100K within five years (even if you have a baby soon). With no mortgage, you'll be amazed at how much easier it is to live comfortably and still save! - Do you have a savings account for a new car? Since yours is paid for, I suggest you begin paying a car payment into a savings account. Once you get yourself "a car ahead" (meaning that you're ready to buy a new car when you need it, so that you're not wasting money on interest), it's easy to STAY "a car ahead". - I have the impression she's a teacher too? If the two of you work at the same school, consider becoming a one-car family. We did it for several years (until I started teaching, and our schedules were completely incompatible), and it was a MONUMENTAL money saver for us. It was the single biggest thing that allowed us to get off to a good financial start in our 20s. - If you hate your job (I do at times, really, I do) but want to stay in the pension system, could you do something else within the school system? Could you be the tech guy? the athletic director? could you do something different as a state employee -- a possibility, if your pension systems are linked? - I don't think you need to think about life insurance at this moment. Not to be crass, but if you died today, would anyone be worse off financially? With no wife or children, probably not. Once you're married, you probably won't need it yet. If you were to die, your wife could use your pension pay-out and your other investments to pay off the modest house payment you anticipate taking out, and she'd still have her job to sustain her. You WILL need life insurance once you have a child. If you were to die and leave your wife with a toddler, she'd have years ahead of her in which she'd be a single parent, and although her salary would be enough to put food on the table and clothes on their backs, your life insurance would be there to educate the child in the future. The life insurance would also assure you that your wife would be able to take some time off work, and that she'd be able to put aside a good chunk for retirement. Remember, she too will need life insurance. If she left you with the toddler, you'd need the same help. - The two of you probably need disability insurance more than you need life insurance. Statistically, you are more likely to be disabled than to die young. And becoming disabled is the real nightmare scenario (from a financial standpoint). Consider: You're in an accident or you become sick. You cannot work, so your household income's slashed in half. Yet your medical bills are sky-high. Your wife is still working, but she's also doing ALL the housework and ALL the childcare AND is trying to help you with your physical therapy. She's burning through her sick days taking you to the doctor. THIS is the nightmare scenario: She's overworked, AND she can't take advantage of your life insurance. Avoid it by signing on for disability insurance. - Another thing you should do after you marry is to write wills. As a teacher, you probably have access to your an employee's credit union? They probably offer such services for a low price. - About your pension: Do you know the details for the pension in your state? In my state you're fully vested at 10 years (so, yeah, you'd be a fool to leave at 9.5 years), and you can collect a full pension at any age once you've put in 30 years. You can collect a reduced pension at 20 or 25 years, though the dollar amount is reduced, and you can't begin collecting until 65 (65?) if you don't put in the full 30 years. Once you find out the details for your own state, you can "run the numbers" and see when it makes sense for you to leave teaching. It might be sensible for you to aim for 20 years, then do something else -- but you have to get the facts, then do your homework. - How secure is your state's pension? This is public knowledge, so look into it. You do not want to put all your eggs into the "staying in teaching" basket, if your state's weak in the pension department. As the people in Detroit! - In my state the pension program (defined benefit program) is being exchanged for a defined contribution program. This has its pros and cons, but overall it means that the new, younger teachers aren't going to get a pension. Why does this matter to you? Because if you ever leave, then return to teaching, you'll come in under those new rules! - An above poster mentioned Social Security. In my state, teachers DO pay into SS, so I will collect an SS check one day. You seem rather financially savvy, so I assume you know whether you've been paying into this or not. - I disagree with the above poster who says you're essentially screwed if you choose to have children AND want to retire at a reasonable age. The key is that you have to choose to live FRUGALLY. My husband and I are 48 and 51, and we have two college students. When we married, we had between us $200, college degrees and jobs, one car, and a brand-new mortgage. We chose to be frugal from the very beginning: We maxed out our 401Ks, even though it meant we couldn't afford vacations. We built an emergency fund, then started a savings account, putting away 1/4 of our after-taxes paychecks, even thought it meant we rarely ate out or bought new clothes. When our savings account grew, we started investing, even though it meant we had to remain a one-car family. Today we live in a house that's paid for, have significant investments, and are easily able to pay for our two college students' expenses -- they will graduate debt-free. My same-aged friends who wail that they can't afford their kids' college tuition don't like to hear that we buy used clothing, drive an 8-year old car, etc. The key is knowing the difference between needs and wants -- and being self-disciplined enough to stick to a budget. - Finally, I think you're off to a good start. If you and your wife are both about 10 years into teaching, then 20 years from now the two of you can expect the following: 1. You'll be about 55 years old, and as a person who can "see 55 from where she's standing", it's not "old" -- at 48, my knees hurt sometimes, but I can still hike all day and can pretty much still do whatever I want. 2. You'll live in a house that's paid for. 3. You'll have two teacher pensions. 4. You'll have teacher health insurance in retirement. 5. You'll have two Social Security checks. 6. You'll have the investments you've already begun. 7. If you have a child soon after your marriage, that child will be finishing college (and beginning to support himself) about the time you retire. You'll be able to have all these benefits AND you can work part-time (or seasonally) so you can avoid dipping into your investments too early. Though you're not earning big bucks now (or ever), you'll be well prepared for retirement. If the two of you put in a total of 60 years of teaching to earn these benefits, you'll have WORKED for every penny, but you'll have a comfortable retirement.

That's exactly what I thought, kudzu. You refuse to accept the math simply because you don't trust the government. That's fine if it makes you feel good because, you think, you've managed to outsmart those sneaky old federal bureaucrats. I sincerely hope you're enjoying your retirement and the SS checks you've been receiving for these past years . What bothers me is that you're misleading others with bad advice about something that's very important for their futures. For example, you claim that the math is so complicated that neither you nor I can figure it out and that the breakeven point may somehow really be later than 78 because of "the time value of money" -- the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar some years down the road. That's certainly true but a deferred SS benefit grows at the guaranteed rate of 7% interest each year for four years -- the rate is 8% for those who hold off four more years until they're 70 -- PLUS whatever rate the COLA is for that year. COLAS have averaged 2.5% for the last 10 years, BTW. Since the deferred benefits is larger each year, the COLA on the growing benefit will also be larger than the COLA for the static early benefit. Considering that, the real breakeven point is probably somewhat less than 78 years not more. The real truth is that the government knows that, no matter what it tells people about waiting to take SS, most (about two-thirds) will take it as soon as they can. Many of them have no choice because they truly need the money. Others may have serious medical problems that are likely to shorten their lives. But many just can't wait to finally get something back from SS after paying in for so many years. Or they're afraid SS will run out of money. Or, like you, they refuse to believe that the government's advice to wait could possibly be true. Of course, each one of the 66% who start taking at 62 costs the government less in lifetime benefits than any and all of those who hold off. The relatively few who hold off until 66 will cost it more and the even fewer (like me) who hold off until 70 will cost it the most. That's why the breakeven point can be set at a lower age than actual life expectancy. The majority who take early collectively create a large enough surplus to fund those of us who hold off taking until later. So I thank you for the contribution, however tiny, you will likely make to help fund the later stages of my retirement.

From what I have read, the maximum payment for a worker at full retirement age (66, in this case) is $2346. However, each person's benefit is based on his own work record. The average payout is actually much less. A spouse has the option of taking the amount of: her/his own benefit or if less than the percentage based on the spouse's income, taking that amount. Basically if the husband's benefit at full retiremnt age is 1000, the wife would be entitled to an amount of 500. If she worked and her benefit from working is greater than 500 she would draw only her benefit; if her benefit amount is less than 500, then she would draw her amount (say 375)plus an amount to equal the 500. If she hadn't worked, she would be entitled to the 50% amount of her husband's benefit. This does not reduce the husband's benefit. The percentage is based on full retirement age; and the percentage is reduced for each year less than full retirement age. That is not the maximum family benefit, which is based on a widow/widower with minor or disabled children. Per SS site: "The benefit amount you and your children receive is based on your deceased husband's earnings. The more he paid into Social Security, the greater your benefits will be. However, there is a limit to the amount of money that can be paid each month to a family. The limit is normally referred to as the "family maximum." This limit varies, but it is generally between 150 and 180 percent of the deceased's benefit amount. If the sum of the benefits payable to you and your children is greater than this limit, each of you will receive a benefit amount that is proportionately reduced" socialsecurity.gov has many Q & A's Here is a link that might be useful: SS Benefits spouse