My Mom Worked Her Whole Life, But Only Gets My Dad's Social Security — Feels Like a Scam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think the issue is that if you're upper middle class like my parents, you're likely to be healthier, live longer, and end up essentially subsidizing others. I get that it's supposed to be for the greater good of society, but honestly, I'm not feeling very charitable toward the government these days. I’d rather have the option to opt out.

You are free to move to another country.

But this is a democracy right? We can't vote to change laws?

Are you also in favor of tax reductions for the rich?

There are things we do for the greater good, as you said. SSI and certain demographics paying more in income tax than others is for the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

Well if you put it this way, putting words in our mouth, we have to agree, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

OMG.

SS is financed by the SS tax. It's one of two FICA taxes that workers pay (the other is the Medicare tax.) There's nothing misleading about it. It's called a tax on your pay stub.

The SS tax that you pay is most accurately thought of as a premium. You are paying a premium for old age and disability insurance for yourself. The premium also covers survivor benefits in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are clearly defined and easily knowable by anyone who cares to look up the rules. The fact that you misunderstand something does not mean there anything"misleading" about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

The level of financial . . . naiveté on this thread is scary. Would you read one quick paragraph and assume you know everything you need to know regarding something as important as your longterm financial health? It would be like choosing a stock based on one quick read, only to dig a little deeper and find out that the one paragraph didn't come close to giving a full understanding of the company and the stock promptly tanks.

[Anonymous]

OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

All you had to do is read a little farther in the same article:
"However, if you are eligible for your own retirement benefit, you won't get both payments; Social Security will pay the higher of the two benefit amounts."

I hope you don't make assumptions about the rest of your life like the assumption you made here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

Social security benefits society: we do not want our elderly to suffer a a society. You misread what the "security" stands for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

It is not the government's fault that AARP's information is incomplete. On SS's own website, which I found by googling "if spouse dies can you collect his ss," and clicking on the actual ss hit, it says:

"If you are a widow (or your ex-spouse died), you may be eligible to receive benefits on your late spouse’s, or ex-spouse’s, Social Security record. How much you receive will depend on your age, the amount of benefits you may receive on your own record, and whether you have dependent children."

https://blog.ssa.gov/survivor-benefits-four-tips-widows-need-to-know/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is in her late 70s and just applied for Social Security. She worked her whole life, earned about $75K a year, and paid into the system for decades. My dad passed away over 15 years ago in his early 70s, made over $200K a year, and never collected a dime.

Now she’s being told she only gets one benefit — hers or his, whichever is higher.

Not both. So all the money she paid in is just gone. If this were a 401(k), she’d have access to everything she earned. Instead, the government keeps it.

It’s infuriating. She should be getting both benefits. Instead, the government pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they both paid in.

Honestly, I would’ve rather not been forced to pay into this broken system at all. Let people save for themselves. This whole thing feels like a scam. We need to stop pretending Social Security is working — it’s not. It’s robbing people who did everything right.

On your logic, your mom shouldn’t be entitled to your dad’s much higher payment because that was his money…not hers.

I am failing to see how your mom is being cheated in this scenario nor why you are complaining.

Seems like the fair answer is she gets hers only.

Who should get the money my dad put in all his life? If not my mom then who?

or rather who gets all the money my mom put in? This is outrageous.

That's like arguing that the sky shouldn't be blue. It's how the system works to the benefit of many who would have nothing otherwise. I do wonder if you're a troll just trying to make the case to abolish SSI.

No, I thought my mom would get both

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

NP. I just described this thread to my husband and both he and I are shocked that we don’t get back what we put in. We are “DCUM MC” and definitely not dumb (although immigrants so perhaps less informed than the average American taxpayer). They should just call it a freaking tax if that’s what it is.

You each get payments for as long as you live. While you are both living you get both payments. If you live a long time, what you get will exceed what you paid in.

But this is single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. The survivor will get the amount of the higher earner though, not just what they alone paid in.

All to say that it isn't a tax. It is a form of insurance.

If it was insurance and not a tax then they shouldn’t have continued to take the SS “premiums” from OP’s mother after the husband died, since she couldn’t benefit from them. Or at the very least they should have offered her the choice about whether to stop paying and accept his fixed payments or keep paying hers on the chance that she’d earn more and therefore get more later. Forcing her to keep paying makes it clear that it was actually a tax. I see why OP is frustrated. It’s very misleading, at best.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's not SSI responsibility to seek people out and proactively advise them as to what they should do. That is impossible with 100s of millions of people paying in. SSI has a very detailed website with tons of information and calculators. All they had to do was research a plan that they were paying into.

I just did a basic internet search and this was the first link:

If My Spouse Dies, Can I Collect Their Social Security Benefits?

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claims benefits before reaching full retirement age.

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/when-spouse-dies/

So I really think some of you owe the OP an apology.

I’m sure there’s some caveat in the fine print but why would people go looking for a catch?? Certainly at a level of common understanding, most people would think that they are eligible to receive their spouses SS after they die, whether they’ve worked in the meantime themselves or not.

It is not the government's fault that AARP's information is incomplete. On SS's own website, which I found by googling "if spouse dies can you collect his ss," and clicking on the actual ss hit, it says:

"If you are a widow (or your ex-spouse died), you may be eligible to receive benefits on your late spouse’s, or ex-spouse’s, Social Security record. How much you receive will depend on your age, the amount of benefits you may receive on your own record, and whether you have dependent children."

https://blog.ssa.gov/survivor-benefits-four-tips-widows-need-to-know/

The info is on AARP's site. The PP just didn't read far enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

“Pooled system” = social
“Risk insurance “ = security


You want to rename it because then it will be easier to kill it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

The actual name of the program is the the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. It is funded primarily through payroll taxes called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes or Self Employed Contributions Act (SECA) taxes. Wage and salary earnings (up to a limit) are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. (In 2024, the limit is $176,100.)

This information is all on Wiki. Your ignorance does not mean that anyone is being misled. It's OK to admit that you just didn't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

So we need to change the name of a well established government program because you are too dumb to spend 30 minutes reading a basic Q&A on SSA.gov? Hell, 10 minutes should have done the job. How you function in life is beyond me. You’re sticking to your inaccurate assumption and doubling down on it.

I think the real problem is our school system doesn’t teach basic comprehension skills. Or, you’re just a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here — here’s an idea to clear things up: they should rename Social Security to something like “Mandatory Retirement Risk Insurance.” That would make it clearer that it’s not a personal savings plan like a 401(k), but a pooled system with no guaranteed return. The name “Social Security” is misleading — it sounds like your money is secured, when really it’s just another tax for a benefit you might get.

“Pooled system” = social
“Risk insurance “ = security


You want to rename it because then it will be easier to kill it

Why would renaming it be easier to kill it? Is that not what it means?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, that's the SS wage limit for 2025, not 2024