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

[Anonymous]

It doesn't need a name change. It's already called old age INSURANCE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't need a name change. It's already called old age INSURANCE.

Then call it that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your mother should have applied for your dad’s SS as soon as he passed away. She missed out on over 15 years of benefits because she didn’t research her benefits. The system isn’t broken.

Yeah, um, your parents' ignorance about Social Security cost them a lot of money. That's their fault though. Don't blame the agency.

[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: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.

Thank you , I thought I was alone but I guess dcum is full of ss experts probably older people like in their 50s+.

I really am not feeling this social security as a good idea I used to be neutral about it but after learning more my opinion has changed and I dislike it and would rather keep my own money to invest. I even don't mind being forced to invest it in bonds or something govt related and not take it out later but this system just seems like a bad deal.

The whole way insurance works is by some people getting out more than they pay in and some less.
Your idea of swapping Social Security for mandated savings is great until you die or become disabled earlier in life (1 in 3 people who starts paying into Social Security by their early 20s is dead or disabled by full retirement age) or you outlive what you have accrued. Nothing is keeping you from saving privately--Social Security was never designed to be anyone's only source of income. But it provides insurance against having nothing, or leaving dependents with nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't need a name change. It's already called old age INSURANCE.

Then call it that

I'm sorry you were not aware of how Social Security works. Now that you do know, you can rest assured that it's actually insurance, paid for through a tax that is called a tax, and the rules, although complicated, are clearly laid out on the Social Security Administration's website. Until recently, you could call your local SSA office and get info from them, too. Unfortunately, that service has been reduced or eliminated by the Trump administration.

[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.

And what's full retirement age? If OP's mom is 79 years old, her full retirement age was 66. She missed out on 13 years of unreduced benefits. Probably a quarter-million dollars. She could have read the SSA or AARP website, asked someone, gone to a Social Security office, hired a financial planner...

[Anonymous]

The degree of rage OP feels leads me to believe that her parents did a poor job with financial planning and now Mom is left needing more money and needs help from OP.

That, or she's really trying to advocate for doing away with SSI aka Social Security Insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The degree of rage OP feels leads me to believe that her parents did a poor job with financial planning and now Mom is left needing more money and needs help from OP.

That, or she's really trying to advocate for doing away with SSI aka Social Security Insurance.

She could be angry at her parents for poor planning. I know the feeling. But this isn't SS agency's fault.

[Anonymous]

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.

If you live longer, you get benefits longer. Unless you are in the tiny number of people like your parents who somehow didn't understand that there is no reason to wait past 70 to claim. Wealthier people actually do better under Social Security in a lot of ways: they can afford to delay claiming to 70 and then get a higher monthly benefit, they tend to live longer so they get the advantage of more months of benefits even after delaying claiming, and they have income that was not subject to FICA (if your dad was making $200k 15 years ago, only about half his income had Social Security and Medicare withholding applied--see https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html). The person who gets screwed is the one who earned under the cap, paid FICA on all their earnings for decades, plans to claim at 65, and dies at 64. And that person is more likely to be poor than rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so protective of social security? After I explained what happened to my mom? I guarantee I am not the only one that doesn't understand how social security works.

People are just frustrated that your family made a huge financial error and you're blaming everyone but yourselves.

Like if you wrote a post that said "My mom put ice cream in the oven and it melted--feels like a scam" or "My mom drove with her hands on the pedals and her feet on the steering wheel and crashed--feels like a scam" and people were explaining why your understanding of things was incorrect, they wouldn't be protective of ice cream or ovens or cars. They would just be explaining facts about something they know more about than you do.

I will say I am actually protective of Social Security. I think it's one of the greatest things America has accomplished. It keeps millions of people out of poverty, and millions more wouldn't have been poor without it but are better off with it. I have seen the positive effects in my family and friends. Social Security transfers smoothly when people change jobs or live in different states--far better than other forms of retirement savings. If you tried to buy an annuity with the features Social Security has, like disability and survivor benefits and lifelong cost-of-living adjustments, it would be far more expensive--if any company would even offer it. I don't want to see Social Security weakened. It frustrates me when people don't understand it, and it frustrates me more when they decide that their lack of understanding is an indication that the program is flawed. There are problems with Social Security, but they are fixable. I'm really sorry that your family didn't learn more about Social Security when your dad died. I'm sorry he died young. I wish you'd gotten better advice, and I hope your story helps other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The degree of rage OP feels leads me to believe that her parents did a poor job with financial planning and now Mom is left needing more money and needs help from OP.

That, or she's really trying to advocate for doing away with SSI aka Social Security Insurance.

to clarify, SSI is Supplemental Security Income, a program for elderly or disabled people with limited income and assets.
The Social Security Administration administers SSI, but it also administers the far larger Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, which is what OP's mom is applying for. That's commonly called "Social Security."

[Anonymous]

She is probably going to receive more in benefits than they contributed. This is common, and one reason the system is going bankrupt.

[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: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.

Thank you , I thought I was alone but I guess dcum is full of ss experts probably older people like in their 50s+.

I really am not feeling this social security as a good idea I used to be neutral about it but after learning more my opinion has changed and I dislike it and would rather keep my own money to invest. I even don't mind being forced to invest it in bonds or something govt related and not take it out later but this system just seems like a bad deal.

Hmm, after reading this thread, I’ve come away with the opposite conclusion. Insurance is about risk sharing. Everyone pays into a system hoping they never have to use it (e.g: insurance for car crashes, flooding, healthcare). We’re lucky if we grow old and have enough money to live well. But for those who grow old and are poor, SS prevents people from becoming destitute.

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s not about being charitable toward the government. It’s to ensure that your poor elderly neighbors don’t end up living in the streets in old age. What society wants to see its elderly citizens dying in the streets?

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s not about being charitable toward the government. It’s to ensure that your poor elderly neighbors don’t end up living in the streets in old age. What society wants to see its elderly citizens dying in the streets?

I prioritize my family first