(03-20-2012 10:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 08:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Well, he paid into the *** **** fund, give him what he was promised.

I tend to agree. He paid for the benefit so he/his offspring should reap the payout.

If he walked into a sperm bank the products are not entitled to his SS why should this be? His wife is already getting survivor benefits... because he is survived by her. These kids are not...

I don't care which way this really goes because this is an outlier and not the real problem with the system.

Not the same thing. It was his "donation" that went to his wife for the purposes of creating a child before he died not some random person at a sperm bank. IMO, given the circumstances, the family should receive the benefits.

of course they should get the benefits...

(03-20-2012 01:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No benefits for the children. The benefits are payed out based upon his beneficiaries at death. We don't get to use a time machine IMO.

If the guy had a 401k or something like that the kids would collect. You're OK with the government forcing a guy to pay into something for his entire working life with the promise of something at the end, and when the end comes you're OK with them stiffing him?

The government took his money now it's time for them to give it back.

His wife is getting HIS benefits. That is the way the system works. Every time we add another new group into this ponzi scheme the quicker it runs out of money. Additionally...I expect he had his life insured. The children will be fine.

You mention 401k...I bet that they are not eligible for the same reason. The children were not alive at the time of the distribution of his estate. They certainly could get it from Mom later though.

(03-20-2012 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No benefits for the children. The benefits are payed out based upon his beneficiaries at death. We don't get to use a time machine IMO.

If the guy had a 401k or something like that the kids would collect. You're OK with the government forcing a guy to pay into something for his entire working life with the promise of something at the end, and when the end comes you're OK with them stiffing him?

The government took his money now it's time for them to give it back.

His wife is getting HIS benefits. That is the way the system works. Every time we add another new group into this ponzi scheme the quicker it runs out of money.

What if she was only 6 or 8 weeks pregnant when he died? That's well before what the state considers "viability". Should she/her child get the benefit then?

(03-20-2012 02:59 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The father froze the seman for the express purpose of having life after his own death. If it is verifiable, and she didn't use a turkey baster(which may be Roberta's last chance) and did reasonable documentation, then benefits seem appropriate.

What if a good friend of the widow has a husband that can't conceive. So they ask if they can use her egg and his sperm to have a child. Does that child get benefits as well?

The dead guy was not married to the widow's good friend.

Why does that matter? I don't believe that for kids to get survivor benefits today their parents had to have been married. If it's not a requirement now why should it play into this situation?

(03-20-2012 04:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 02:59 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The father froze the seman for the express purpose of having life after his own death. If it is verifiable, and she didn't use a turkey baster(which may be Roberta's last chance) and did reasonable documentation, then benefits seem appropriate.

What if a good friend of the widow has a husband that can't conceive. So they ask if they can use her egg and his sperm to have a child. Does that child get benefits as well?

The dead guy was not married to the widow's good friend.

Why does that matter? I don't believe that for kids to get survivor benefits today their parents had to have been married. If it's not a requirement now why should it play into this situation?

From today’s WAPO

If they had been called out in his will, it may not be an issue:

Quote:
The Capatos married in 1999, and shortly thereafter he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Because they feared that his treatments might leave him sterile, Robert Capato began depositing sperm at a sperm bank in Florida.

He rallied at one point, and the couple had a naturally conceived son in 2001. But as his condition worsened, the Capatos began to talk about in vitro fertilization to give their son siblings. They signed a notarized statement that any children “born to us, who were conceived by the use of our embryos” shall in all aspects be their children and entitled to their property.

But the provision was not included in Robert Capato’s will at his death in March 2002.

Also it says they look to state law to determine eligibility for inheritance:
Quote:
After the twins were born, Karen Capato applied for Social Security survivor benefits. The Capatos’ naturally conceived son received the benefits; the twins did not. The administrative-law judge said the 1939 federal law looked to state laws to determine whether the benefit seeker is eligible to inherit property, and under Florida law, the twins were not eligible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/c...story.html

A related article on the judge’s questions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/s...story.html

(03-20-2012 04:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 02:59 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The father froze the seman for the express purpose of having life after his own death. If it is verifiable, and she didn't use a turkey baster(which may be Roberta's last chance) and did reasonable documentation, then benefits seem appropriate.

What if a good friend of the widow has a husband that can't conceive. So they ask if they can use her egg and his sperm to have a child. Does that child get benefits as well?

The dead guy was not married to the widow's good friend.

Why does that matter? I don't believe that for kids to get survivor benefits today their parents had to have been married. If it's not a requirement now why should it play into this situation?

His expectation for his sperm, was children born of his wife.

(03-20-2012 05:08 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 04:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 02:59 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The father froze the seman for the express purpose of having life after his own death. If it is verifiable, and she didn't use a turkey baster(which may be Roberta's last chance) and did reasonable documentation, then benefits seem appropriate.

What if a good friend of the widow has a husband that can't conceive. So they ask if they can use her egg and his sperm to have a child. Does that child get benefits as well?

The dead guy was not married to the widow's good friend.

Why does that matter? I don't believe that for kids to get survivor benefits today their parents had to have been married. If it's not a requirement now why should it play into this situation?

From today’s WAPO

If they had been called out in his will, it may not be an issue:

Quote:
The Capatos married in 1999, and shortly thereafter he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Because they feared that his treatments might leave him sterile, Robert Capato began depositing sperm at a sperm bank in Florida.

He rallied at one point, and the couple had a naturally conceived son in 2001. But as his condition worsened, the Capatos began to talk about in vitro fertilization to give their son siblings. They signed a notarized statement that any children “born to us, who were conceived by the use of our embryos” shall in all aspects be their children and entitled to their property.

But the provision was not included in Robert Capato’s will at his death in March 2002.

Also it says they look to state law to determine eligibility for inheritance:
Quote:
After the twins were born, Karen Capato applied for Social Security survivor benefits. The Capatos’ naturally conceived son received the benefits; the twins did not. The administrative-law judge said the 1939 federal law looked to state laws to determine whether the benefit seeker is eligible to inherit property, and under Florida law, the twins were not eligible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/c...story.html

A related article on the judge’s questions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/s...story.html

SS is a federal benefit.

(03-20-2012 07:40 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  His expectation for his sperm, was children born of his wife.

I don't disagree. But what his expectations were are fairly irrelevant in a court of law unless they were documented somewhere.

(03-20-2012 07:48 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 07:40 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  His expectation for his sperm, was children born of his wife.

I don't disagree. But what his expectations were are fairly irrelevant in a court of law unless they were documented somewhere.

His intensions may be established in other ways.

So if the money can't be used to take care of our family after we're gone, then WTF are we forced to do this? I'd rather put my money into a 401k or insurance policy so there would be a payoff at the end. **** the government, that's his money. If it was Welfare for some homeless ***** with 17 kids there would be no question about paying.

(03-20-2012 04:03 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No benefits for the children. The benefits are payed out based upon his beneficiaries at death. We don't get to use a time machine IMO.

If the guy had a 401k or something like that the kids would collect. You're OK with the government forcing a guy to pay into something for his entire working life with the promise of something at the end, and when the end comes you're OK with them stiffing him?

The government took his money now it's time for them to give it back.

His wife is getting HIS benefits. That is the way the system works. Every time we add another new group into this ponzi scheme the quicker it runs out of money.

What if she was only 6 or 8 weeks pregnant when he died? That's well before what the state considers "viability". Should she/her child get the benefit then?

That is a good question. Personally...I'd say yes in that instance.

(03-20-2012 07:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So if the money can't be used to take care of our family after we're gone, then WTF are we forced to do this? I'd rather put my money into a 401k or insurance policy so there would be a payoff at the end. **** the government, that's his money. If it was Welfare for some homeless ***** with 17 kids there would be no question about paying.

I also despise the SS system. It is a ponzi scheme that returns a pittance to those that put money in it. I does not even keep up with inflation in regard to its ROI. At age 51...I do not plan on ever receiving a dime of it. I fully expect to get screwed out of my money. That is why almost 3 decades ago I started preparing for my retirement sans SS.