The economy, as well as our regulation and perception of it, are in a state of flux these days. So, it’s no surprise many consumers are still in the dark when it comes to new rules dictating the credit card market in the aftermath of the Great Recession. From the notion that people under the age of 21 can’t get credit cards to the idea that household income can no longer be listed on credit card applications, there are a number of common misconceptions that still remain.

Young people can indeed open student credit cards; they just need the income or assets necessary to make monthly minimum payments – same as anyone else.  Household income can also be used on credit card applications, though not necessarily by that name.

That last point is especially important in this age of social change and building momentum for both gender and marriage equality. You see, the CARD Act initially outlawed the use of shared income on credit card applications – a proposal that proved to have far-reaching social implications.

The Mistaken Abolition of Household Income?

The rationale was that shared, or household, income obscured underwriting efforts since debts were listed on the individual level. In other words, it was impossible to accurately determine an applicant’s true ability to pay, as a significant portion of the household income listed on an application could already be earmarked for debts held by applicant’s partner. And if much of the listed income is not truly available, the credit line for which the applicant is approved may end up being way out of whack with the applicant’s true ability to pay. From there, it’s easy to imagine a situation where the proud new cardholder racks up unsustainable debts and then defaults, thereby ruining his or her credit and costing the card issuer money in the process.

Accordingly, as the entire credit card market tightened underwriting standards and renewed its focus on the safety and soundness of the banking system, abolishing the household income system only seemed logical. “Credit card applications generally cannot request a consumer's 'household income' because that term is too vague to allow issuers to properly evaluate the consumer's ability to pay,” the CFPB wrote in its initially proposed rule.  “Instead, issuers must consider the consumer's individual income or salary.”

The Resulting Backlash

However, in issuing this proposal, the CFPB apparently failed to consider a few important issues. What would the rule mean for stay-at-home parents who may not have individual income? Would they be restricted from obtaining credit and maximizing their credit scores? How would such an environment affect the economic balance of relationships? And what would this mean for men and women in potentially abusive relationships?

Such questions sparked fierce opposition, particularly from women’s groups like MomsRising, which amassed tens of thousands of signatures on petitions calling for the repeal of the proposed rule.  Notable politicians like Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) – two of the CARD Act’s authors – also spoke out against the rule.

“We are concerned that the Board's proposal will hamper a stay-at-home mom's ability to establish her own independent credit history by applying independently for a card,” Maloney and Slaughter wrote in a joint letter to the Federal Reserve. “Many stay-at-home moms have a strong work history, yet the proposed regulations ignore their demonstrated credit-worthiness because of their lack of current market income.”

A Final Resolution

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ultimately heard the calls of stay-at-home spouses across the country, repealing its individual income plan in favor of a final rule that “allows card issuers to consider third-party income if the applicant has a reasonable expectation of access to it,” according to a press release. This decision represents a significant victory for women’s rights, according to Elaine McCrate, professor of economics and women’s studies at the University of Vermont.  “It’s a recognition that marriage is an economic partnership, in which women contribute seriously undervalued nonmarket services, and should in turn have access to the fruits of their partner’s earnings and credit.” But for this throwback underwriting environment to work, stay-at-home spouses must be careful to leverage their access to credit with care.

How to Navigate the New Landscape

Just because you’re able to open a new credit card doesn’t mean you should, just like opening a new credit card doesn’t mean you actually have to use it. Those are two very important principles to keep in mind to avoid finding ourselves deep in debt.

With that in mind, here are a few tips for safely tapping credit and building your credit score in this new-age credit landscape:

• Open a Secured Card:  If credit building is your primary objective, opening a secured credit card is by far your safest option.  It’s impossible to spend beyond your means with a secured card, since your credit line will be equal to the refundable security deposit you place upon account opening.  That security deposit also minimizes issuer risk, which means account approval is pretty much guaranteed.
• Fill Out a Joint Application:  A number of credit card issuers offer joint applications, which allow a couple to list both of their Social Security Numbers as well as both parties’ income and debt obligations. Doing so will afford credit card underwriters a clear sense of your financial situation and will result in you getting approval for a much more affordable credit line, if either you or your partner has shown a tendency to overspend.
• Cut Up Your Card:  You don’t need to make purchases or maintain a balance with a credit card in order to build credit. Account information will be reported to the major credit bureaus on a monthly basis even if your physical card is locked in a drawer or cut into a million pieces. Accordingly, if you want to take advantage of the credit building capabilities that credit cards provide but you don’t trust yourself to spend within your means, just remove the temptation altogether.

Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that the ability to access credit is a privilege that must be exercised with care.  Judging from the more than $73 billion in credit card debt we’ve racked up in the past two years alone, far too few people are doing so.

By Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of the credit card website CardHub.com  

US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US government will now recognize same sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages in all federal matters. That means they will be treated just the same in bankruptcy court proceedings, visitation privileges for inmates of federal prisons and in federal survivor benefits.

Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.

Same sex married couples will now be able to jointly file for bankruptcy. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. And, if they do file for bankruptcy and were married in a state which allows same sex marriage, such as California, their bankruptcy will be valid all across the nation, even in states that do not recognize same sex marriage.

Also, from now on, people in same sex marriages will have to right to refuse to testify against their spouses in civil and criminal cases heard in federal court, even when the court proceedings occur in states that do not recognize same sex marriage. And the same sex spouses of all law enforcement officers and firefighters will be entitled to benefits in the event of death or severe injury in the line of duty.

Federal prison inmates, who are married to people of the same sex, will have the same rights as inmates who are in heterosexual marriages. For example, their spouses will be allowed to visit them in prison, federal prisoners will be allowed to take escorted trips to attend the funerals of their spouses or to deal with crises being faced by their spouses, to engage in correspondence with their spouses, and to obtain compassionate release, or reduction of their sentence, to care for a disabled spouse who is not in prison.

The Attorney General’s order also covers some lesser known programs such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Program . During the cold war era with the Soviet Union, the United the United States carried out numerous atomic bomb tests. In order to do these tests people mined uranium and others processed that uranium to prepare it for use in that program. Some of them got sick and died from exposure to the uranium.

Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to provide monetary compensation to those who got sick from the radiation. The act also provides compensation to the spouses of people who died from that radiation. Now those spousal benefits will be available to the same sex spouses of those who died.

Attorney General Holder also stated that same sex spouses would be eligible for spousal compensation from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.

It is important to note that the US Attorney General has little or no authority over state courts and programs. It is possible, for example, that a state court in Georgia might compel the same sex spouse of a defendant to testify against his or her spouse in state court, even if they married in a state where same sex marriages are recognized.

None-the-less, Attorney General Holder’s announcement is another major step in the march to full and equal rights for LGBT people.

Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. 

Under current federal law a spouse who has reached age 62 can claim a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings. That spouse could get a higher monthly payment if he or she waits to age 65 before claiming the benefit. Once the spouse submits the claim, he or she will start receiving monthly checks from Social Security.

There is a way that some same sex married couples can manage their Social Security to maximize their total household Social Security income.

Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.

Here is how a same sex married couple might be able to maximize their Social Security income. Federal law allows someone (let’s call him Tom) to claim a Social Security benefit based on the earnings of his or her spouse. Let’s call him George. If George had much higher income than Tom, Tom’s Social Security check might be higher if he claimed as the spouse George instead of claiming the monthly amount due based on his own earnings.

The problem is that, in order for Tom to claim Social Security as George’s spouse, George must  also claim his Social Security benefit. The problem with that is that locks in the amount that George can receive in each month from Social Security.

George could claim Social Security as early as when he reaches age 62. But that means he would be locked in to a relatively low Social Security monthly check. If he waited until he was 70 years old his monthly check would be higher. In fact each year beyond 62 that he continues working, and not claiming Social Security, (up until age 70) the amount of Social Security dollars he would qualify for goes up by 8%.

Then too, George’s salary, between his 62nd and 70th birthdays are likely to be the highest he earned during his work life. That salary increase would increase the amount he qualifies for in Social Security monthly checks.

It would be a shame for George to have to sacrifice that extra Social Security income just so Tom can claim Social Security based on George’s work history. But actually George does not have to make that sacrifice.

Under current law George can file for Social Security benefits, but then immediately suspend receipt of those benefits until some future date. By doing this, Tom can claim a spousal benefit and George can let his or her own retirement benefit grow at 8 percent per year. In this way some same sex couples can significantly increase the amount of monthly benefits they receive from Social Security.

Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. 

NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. 

Because Proposition 8 was overturned by the US Supreme Court, if you are in a same sex marriage, you may qualify to take paid time off from work if your husband or wife is seriously ill.

Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.

Now that same sex couples can marry in California, they may qualify for paid family leave under California law. They may also qualify for family leave under federal law. However the federal law does not provide income during the period of the leave.

Here is how the state law works.

California law allows people who work for most private employers to take up to 6 weeks (per 12 month period) of paid time off of work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new born child. People may also take paid time off to bond with a newly adopted child or with a child who is new to the home as a foster child.

In addition, self employed workers can qualify for the benefit if they have enrolled in the State Disability Income Elective Coverage Program.

Since same sex couples are now allowed to marry in California, workers can now qualify for paid time off to care for a seriously ill same sex spouse.

This paid time off program is a part of the California Disability Insurance (SDI) program, and those who qualify for SDI generally qualify for paid family leave as well.

Generally employees of the state of California do not qualify for this benefit. However they do qualify if their union has successfully bargained for the right to the coverage.

There is a federal family leave law that does require employers to re-hire workers who have taken time off under that law to care for a sick family member. However, that federal law does not provide any income during the leave period. Also, to qualify for the federal program, the worker must be employed by a company that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of where the person seeking leave time works.

By contrast, the California Paid Family Leave Program provides income during the leave time, but employers are not required to take the worker back.

The weekly benefit amount (provided by the California Paid Family Leave Program) is approximately 55 percent of the earnings shown in the highest quarter of the employee’s base period. But the total will not exceed $266 per week. The payments come from the state. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the leave period.

Sometimes workers can take adequate care of their spouse, or other family member while working part time. In that case they can get paid part time by their employer and get a partial payment from the California Paid Family Leave Program as well.

Employers can require their workers to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation time before leaving on paid family leave. However, they can’t require workers to use accrued sick leave before starting paid family leave.

A medical certificate from a doctor is required when the time off is requested in order to care for a seriously ill family member. That certificate must include a diagnosis of the family member’s illness, the beginning date and probable duration of the illness, along with a statement that care by the person seeking time off is appropriate.

If the request is for bonding the time off requested must be within one year of the arrival of the child.

Workers can apply on line for California paid family leave.

Or they can order a paper copy of form DE 2501F by calling 1-877-238-4373. Hearing impaired people can order the form by Teletypewriter (TTY) 1-800-445-1312. The form also is available to be downloaded.

Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. 

NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. 

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. In a curious twist of fate, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may have contributed to a future US Supreme Court decision overturning all state laws that ban same sex marriage. Make no mistake, Justice Scalia is no supporter of same sex marriage. However in his dissent from one of the same sex marriage victories at the Supreme Court last June he said "The view that this court (meaning the US Supreme Court) will take of state prohibition of same sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. Neither of the decisions announced last June dealt directly with the question of whether or not state laws banning same sex marriage violate the US constitution. But Justice Scalia says that, since the majority of the Supreme Court supported same sex marriage in the two cases decided in June, they are likely to rule that any bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional, when and if such a question is brought before them. Recently a federal judge (Robert Shelby) in Utah quoted Justice Scalia’s statement and used it as a basis for overturning Utah’s ban on the recognition of same sex marriage in that state. In essence the judge was saying, if Justice Scalia thinks the majority of the court would overturn bans on same sex marriage, then he (Judge Shelby) aught to overturn Utah’s ban on such marriages. Usually, in such cases, the federal judge will stay his own decision. In other words he would not let his or her decision go into effect until all appeals of the decision have been decided. But, apparently, Judge Shelby thought his decision would not be overturned, so he refused to stay the decision. Those who oppose same sex marriage went to an appeals court asking it to stay Judge Shelby’s decision. But the appeals court also refused to do that. So many same sex couples continue to get married in Utah. This creates a sticky situation for the US Supreme Court. They may be forced to take up this case and decide whether or not all laws banning same sex marriage violate the US Constitution. Many authorities believe the Supreme Court Justices would like to hold off making that decision for at least a few years. It has been reported for example, that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has wished that the Roe v Wade decision, allowing abortion under certain circumstances, would have been delayed a few years. Justice Ginsberg definitely supports a woman’s right to choose. But she reportedly believes that the public had not come around to supporting that right at the time of the Roe v Wade decision. She apparently thinks that, if more education had occurred before the Roe v Wade decision, and more people were accepting of a woman’s right to choose, then the decision might not have created the fire storm that continues to this day. More and more people are accepting the concept of same sex marriage. Thus, the Supreme Court Justices may be hoping to put off a final decision on the issue until most people in the country can accept the concept. But the Utah court decision deals directly with the question, and the State of Utah has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Thus, the court may not be able to avoid dealing with it soon.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. For a long time, when a US citizen married a foreign national of the opposite sex (such as a citizen of England), the foreign national could emigrate to this nation on the basis of that marriage. However, until Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court, the same was not true when a US citizen married a foreign national of the same sex. Now same sex married international couples have the same immigration rights as do heterosexual couples. A foreign national, married to a US citizen of the same sex, now has the right to emigrate to this country. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. There are two processes by which the foreign national can gain legal residency in this country. 1. If the foreign national is already in this country legally – In this case, the U.S. citizen may file an immigration petition (I-130) and the alien spouse may file an application to adjust his or her status to permanent resident (I-485) at the same time. The I-130 petition must be filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The USCIS is part of the US Department of Homeland Security. 2. If the foreign national is in another country – In this case, the U.S. citizen needs to file an immigration petition (I-130) and request that the USCIS notify a U.S. Consulate in the country where his or her spouse lives. Once the immigration petition is approved, the National Visa Center of the U.S. State Department sends a “Packet 3″ to the U.S. citizen. After the necessary forms are completed, the alien spouse goes to the U.S. Consulate abroad to apply for an immigrant visa. On the day that the alien spouse enters the United States on an immigrant visa, he or she becomes a U.S. permanent resident. People entering this process need to be patient. Recent reports indicate that it takes an average of 13 months for approval of an I-130 request where the foreign national is legally in the US. (Option 1. above) Option 2. Above will probably take longer. However, when the alien spouse is living abroad, that spouse can apply for a K-3 visa. This visa allows the alien spouse to live in this country while the alien’s application for permanent residency in this country is being processed. People with a K – 3 visa are also allowed to work in this country while awaiting approval of permanent residency.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. Recently someone said she had heard that widows and widowers could only get Social Security survivor benefits if they have been married at least 10 years at the time of the death of their spouse. Same sex couples have only recently been allowed to marry. So, if there is a 10 year threshold, same sex couples would need to wait a long time before qualifying for Social Security survivor benefits. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. In fact, a couple must have been married for a minimum of only 9 months before the death of one of them for the widow or widower to qualify for Social Security survivor benefits based on the Social Security account of the deceased spouse. According to a representative of the Social Security Administration, that threshold period can be reduced. For example, if the spouse died in a tragic accident the 9 month rule might be reduced. People can also get certain Social Security spousal benefits when both of them are alive. To qualify for these benefits, the couple must have been married for a year prior to applying for the benefits. In the case of divorce, the former spouse of the deceased might also qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. However, in order for the divorced former spouse to qualify, the marriage must have lasted at least 10 years. As regards widows and widowers who were married to the deceased at the time of death, how much the survivor receives depends on several factors. The more earnings the deceased had prior to death, the higher the monthly payment the survivor may qualify for. The longer the deceased has been working, and paying Social Security taxes, the higher the amount the survivor will receive. However this factor does not increase the benefit beyond 10 years of working history of the deceased. The deceased’s having worked 11 years does not increase the benefit any more than 10 years of work does. Survivors get the full monthly payment if the worker worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years. However, if the deceased died young and had not yet worked 10 years, the widow or widower might still qualify for some portion of the full monthly payment. The age of the survivor, when he or she starts drawing the Social Security benefit, affects how large the monthly payments are. If he or she waits until full retirement age the survivor will get the full benefit. Full retirement age varies from age 66 to 67, depending on the date of birth of the survivor. However, in return for accepting reduced monthly payments, the survivor can start monthly payments as young as age 60. Also, if the survivor is caring for a child of the deceased, who is under age 16, the surviving spouse can start monthly payments at any age. In this case, the surviving spouse would get the full monthly payment. The amount would not be reduced because of the young age of the surviving spouse. You may read a brochure from the Social Security Administration, with more details on this issue, by directing your browser to the following  address: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf Note: This article was corrected from an earlier version that misstated the amount of time a couple must be married before being eligible for social security  spousal benefits.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. People who are thinking of getting married, and who are receiving assistance from Medi-Cal, or may want to apply for it, should carefully consider their marriage plans. In some cases, getting married might disqualify them for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is a program which provides health insurance to those with very low income in California. It can help people pay for doctor’s visits, medications, lab tests and xrays, hospital care and surgery charges and skilled nursing home care. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Medi-Cal has income limits for qualifying for the program. To qualify for Medi-Cal the applicant’s income must be less than 138% of the federal poverty level. For calendar year 2014, that means a single person must make less than $1,322 per month, or a couple must earn less than $1,784 per month, to be eligible. As you can see, the income limit for a couple is considerably less than for two single people. So, the income limits mean that two people on limited income might consider not getting married so they both will remain eligible for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal also has property limits. That is, the value of property owned by a person or couple applying for Medi-Cal must not be worth more than a certain amount. For one person that value limit is $3,000. For two people (such as a married couple) the amount is the same. So here is an example of how these property limits might hurt a couple that gets married. Suppose two individuals each own $2,900 worth of property. If each of them were single, each of them would meet the asset test. Neither of them would be disqualified for owning too much property. If they married, each of them would fail that test and be disqualified. There are other requirements that people must meet to qualify for Medi-Cal. But the income and asset tests should be considered when people on limited income are considering getting married. To see a list of the other requirements,direct your browser to the following address. http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/forms/Forms/mc002info0907.pdf