Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cost of Polygamist Case Tops $7 Million
CNN via AOLNews ^ | 6-4-08 | Ashley Broughton

Posted on 06/04/2008 4:25:34 PM PDT by FreeInWV

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last
To: patton
The $6,000/month figure is a sock of cr@p.

Thanks for the info. Do you know if SS pays for out of wedlock dependents? I wouldn't think that it would, but what the government does and what I would expect often don't coincide.

101 posted on 06/06/2008 1:53:26 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

They do pay for dependants, but based on the identified parent’s income.

If you max out your SS payments each year, your identified dependants can collect about $3,200 between them.

If the income of your identified parent is less, you get less.


102 posted on 06/06/2008 1:58:47 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: patton
They do pay for dependants, but based on the identified parent’s income.

So there would be a little bit of an economic incentive for pensioners to go out and make children isn't there?

103 posted on 06/06/2008 2:16:01 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Only if you want to see your pension reduced, buy the same amount they give the kids.


104 posted on 06/06/2008 2:36:49 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: patton
Only if you want to see your pension reduced, buy the same amount they give the kids.

Ahh, so there is no justification for the anti FLDS claims then. Unless the anti FLDS'ers don't think that FLDS people deserve to get SS.

105 posted on 06/06/2008 2:41:14 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: patton

I just calculated $3,885.50 per month for a surviving spouse of a deceased worker who made $90,000 per annum with one child.

Survivors Monthly benefit amount:
Your child $1,664.00
Your spouse caring for your child $1,664.00
Your spouse at normal retirement age $2,219.00
Family maximum $3,885.50


106 posted on 06/06/2008 5:39:12 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

Yes, that agrees exactly with what I said. Your point?


107 posted on 06/06/2008 5:49:43 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Actually, the question of whether the child is a ‘bastard’ or not never entered my mind.

I don't know if Gideon was the child of Dan Barlow's first and legal wife or one of his spiritual wives, thus I don't know the boy's legal status.

I do know that when Gideon was kicked out, his father failed to notify social security that the child was no longer his dependent and continued to collect benefits.

That was the point I was trying to make.

108 posted on 06/06/2008 5:50:44 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

You did notice, I take it, that before your kids can collect on “survivors benefits”, you have to die?


109 posted on 06/06/2008 5:53:07 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: patton

Yes, it was caluclated for a surviving spouse and a child . . . duh.


110 posted on 06/06/2008 5:56:12 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

So where did the $6000/month come from?

Because SS doesn’t do that.


111 posted on 06/06/2008 5:57:43 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

Hello, remember this post? It is a bald-faced lie, and I am sick of it.

Go stuff a sock in it.


112 posted on 06/06/2008 6:01:41 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland
I do know that when Gideon was kicked out, his father failed to notify social security that the child was no longer his dependent and continued to collect benefits.

I guess you missed the posts with Patton. Any SS payments for the child would be deducted from the fathers benefits. It is a wash, the government doesn't pay any extra if the beneficiary has children or not.

113 posted on 06/06/2008 7:05:03 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

While the following benefits are expressed as a percentage of an employee’s benefits, their payment does not reduce the employee’s benefit. The spousal benefit can be paid in addition to the employee’s Social Security benefit.

Married to the employee for at least 1 year, or, if less than 1 year, is the parent of the employee’s child, and meets one of the following age requirements:

a. Any age, with entitled child under age 16 or disabled in care (payment rate is 50% of employee’s full benefit).

b. Age 65 (50% of employee’s full benefit).

c. Age 62-64 (50% of employee’s full benefit, permanently reduced for each month of entitlement prior to age 65).

Divorced spouse, married to the employee at least 10 years, and meets one of the following age requirements:

a. Age 65 (50% of employee’s full benefit).

b. Age 62-64 (50% of employee’s full benefit, permanently reduced for each month of entitlement prior to age 65).

http://www.opm.gov/fers_election/html/more_10.htm


114 posted on 06/06/2008 7:42:23 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

That was spousal benefits, we are talking about dependents.


115 posted on 06/06/2008 8:08:45 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

a. Any age, with entitled child under age 16 or disabled in care (payment rate is 50% of employee’s full benefit).


116 posted on 06/06/2008 8:31:22 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

pay for it by raising the taxes of every person who supported this debacle..


117 posted on 06/06/2008 8:56:02 PM PDT by Awestruck (All the usual suspects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neutrino

The ethnic underage mothers will never be investigated because there would be too much backlash..easier to pick on an unpopular target with not much public support. Too bad CPS didn’t figure on the support of people who care about the constitution.. there’s still a few of us left. The rest of the pseudo conservatives would rather simmer like the proverbial frogs in the pot.


118 posted on 06/06/2008 9:08:51 PM PDT by Awestruck (All the usual suspects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Check this out. We've been told the authorities were looking for Dale Barlow, the sex offender from Colorado City. But were they . . .

< snip >

Swinton was arrested on April 16, three days after Texas Rangers contacted Colorado Springs police about two telephone numbers from the Colorado Springs area they were investigating as part of the YFZ Ranch probe.

According to an arrest affidavit, Colorado Springs police told the Rangers that one of the numbers was associated with Swinton and that she has been known to make false reports of sexual abuse. The other number was later determined to be a cell phone belonging to a 31-year-old male named Courtney Swinton who lived in the same apartment complex as Rozita Swinton. Courtney Swinton's telephone was allegedly used by a woman named Sarah Barlow to call a battered women's shelter in Washington State between March 22 and April 8. According to the affidavit, Barlow said she was 16, that she had an infant daughter named Claire and that she had a "reassigned husband" named Uncle Merrill. According to the document, Texas investigators believed that was a reference to Frederick Merrill Jessop, the head of the YFZ Ranch.

< snip >

Merrill is one of the men who has disappeared. His "Bishop's Record" hasn't been released.

source

119 posted on 06/06/2008 11:07:47 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland (4-Hshootingsports.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

In situations like this, a discerning person can also notice a lot of ironic, backward misinterpretation of religiosity on the part of secular people.


120 posted on 06/07/2008 4:36:41 AM PDT by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson