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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The irony of someone whose parents screwed up collecting SS coming on here to argue that people should have more control over their SS account is... ssomething.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But not quite enough to do 4 minutes of research and provide useful advice? My mom collected my late father's SSI (which she didn't realize she was eligible to receive post-divorce) for a decade because I told her to apply. That's prioritizing family. Not understanding how anything works, pissing into the wind, and then whining about how unfair the world is while demanding a separate tax to pay your dry cleaning is not prioritizing your family.

no, the OP meant that she is not concerned with the eldery in society as a whole, but only about her family. A "family oriented" culture instead of civic-oriented culture is her vibe.

That's not a family-oriented culture. It's a self- centered culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is such a great idea what private companies offer the same insurance concept?

Health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, home insurance.... many many private companies offer insurance. No one offers old age insurance because a free government program (very low admin fees) already exists.

[Anonymous]

OP should be glad thar her Dad could work into his 70s. Most people can't. I have many relatives who died in there 50s and never collected a dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is such a great idea what private companies offer the same insurance concept?

Health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, home insurance.... many many private companies offer insurance. No one offers old age insurance because a free government program (very low admin fees) already exists.

You could patch something together with a combination of an annuity and life insurance that would be similar to SS OAI but it would be way more expensive than what you pay Social Security. Because Social Security is mandatory and so large, it saves a lot in both admin costs and in risk spreading — plus it doesn’t make a profit unlike private insurers.

[Anonymous]

I think OP’s post is ridiculous but there are feminist scholars who have criticized the way SS OAI program was set up because if presupposes a single spouse who makes more money (which was true for OP’s parents) and is something of a disincentive for equally earning dual income households. If we weee designing a system from scratch in 2025, Ed might make different choices …. But most families in 1938 wanted a system that enabled women to be able to stay home with children and have some security that if their husbands died, they would receive assistance to raise the children. SS—both SSI and OAI—gave them that. In 1938, there were a lot of women working who did not want to be working and this legislation was part of a complement of New Deal programs that also included the original “welfare” program that allowed women to spend more time with their children.

Interestingly, certain industries such as agriculture and domestic services were carved out because the southern Dixiecrats did not want poor women (mostly black) to leave the workforce. FDR needed their votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, something that a lot of people don't know is that if you were married for X number of years (I don't know how many) then divorce, you are entitled to a portion of your Ex's SS benefits after they retire and you are of retirement age.

If you were married at least 10 years and then divorced, you can possibly receive SS based on your ex's earnings.

Note that this does NOT reduce your ex's SS amount. There are a lot of rules about your age, ex's age, and if you remarry it goes away. Not sure what happens if you divorce again. Also, I think it was either your SS amount or 50% of ex's, whichever is higher.

Years ago I found out an acquaintance was about to finalize her divorce and they were 1 month shy of 10 years. I told her about this and she delayed the papers. She was very grateful as she was a SAHM and this would definitely help her if she never remarried.

[Anonymous]

Why do you keep saying OP should move to another country? The entire world pretty much has stronger and more generous SS rules, including subsidized health care. I'm European and we are not kind to dumb people like OP. She would be eaten alive anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP’s post is ridiculous but there are feminist scholars who have criticized the way SS OAI program was set up because if presupposes a single spouse who makes more money (which was true for OP’s parents) and is something of a disincentive for equally earning dual income households. If we weee designing a system from scratch in 2025, Ed might make different choices …. But most families in 1938 wanted a system that enabled women to be able to stay home with children and have some security that if their husbands died, they would receive assistance to raise the children. SS—both SSI and OAI—gave them that. In 1938, there were a lot of women working who did not want to be working and this legislation was part of a complement of New Deal programs that also included the original “welfare” program that allowed women to spend more time with their children.

Interestingly, certain industries such as agriculture and domestic services were carved out because the southern Dixiecrats did not want poor women (mostly black) to leave the workforce. FDR needed their votes.

Not only were several African American-dominated industries excluded (I would argue this was more about not wanting to pay them social security benefits, rather than votes), the disparity in average age of death between the races has always meant SS has a discriminatory effect against the AA population also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP’s post is ridiculous but there are feminist scholars who have criticized the way SS OAI program was set up because if presupposes a single spouse who makes more money (which was true for OP’s parents) and is something of a disincentive for equally earning dual income households. If we weee designing a system from scratch in 2025, Ed might make different choices …. But most families in 1938 wanted a system that enabled women to be able to stay home with children and have some security that if their husbands died, they would receive assistance to raise the children. SS—both SSI and OAI—gave them that. In 1938, there were a lot of women working who did not want to be working and this legislation was part of a complement of New Deal programs that also included the original “welfare” program that allowed women to spend more time with their children.

Interestingly, certain industries such as agriculture and domestic services were carved out because the southern Dixiecrats did not want poor women (mostly black) to leave the workforce. FDR needed their votes.

Full time dual earners stress families and communities, ad are anti-feminist.
A primary-earner woman is feminist. A single woman earner is feminist.

Full-time long-term Dual-earner families are not feminist.
We need fewer people-hours in employment, so that the remaining employee-hours get higher wages and the non-employee-hours can be spent helping family and community.

[Anonymous]

OP I’m sorry for all of these insensitive PPs. I completely get your frustration.. redistributive economic policy creates winners (those who paid very little into the system and will get more back as they age) and losers (those who pay in a lot and receive little or nothing back). I’m sorry your family came out on the losing end, and I agree it’s not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you keep saying OP should move to another country? The entire world pretty much has stronger and more generous SS rules, including subsidized health care. I'm European and we are not kind to dumb people like OP. She would be eaten alive anywhere else.

The move-to-Europe argument is to get higher benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I’m sorry for all of these insensitive PPs. I completely get your frustration.. redistributive economic policy creates winners (those who paid very little into the system and will get more back as they age) and losers (those who pay in a lot and receive little or nothing back). I’m sorry your family came out on the losing end, and I agree it’s not fair.

Redistributive policy creates winners as winners. Money has logarithmic value. Dead people don't need money.

A non-redistributive policy creates starvation and death.

The value of a human life is not the number of dollars it accumulates. That's loser thinking.

[Anonymous]

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?

Ok, she can collect hers instead of his then, feel free to opt for that.

You’re acting like she got swindled, but these are the terms of SSA and have been. You guys owned yourselves by not bothering to educate yourselves. It’s an insurance plan, you pay in a set amount to ensure you have a stipend to live on in your old age until you die.

Would you rather have a system where your mom lives until 95 and was kicked off at 80 bc she ran through her contributions? Because you can’t have it both ways.

I'm sorry, I thought this is a aMErica. I want it both ways! Socialize my losses, and privatize my gains!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think she shouldn’t even get the his/her option and she should only get hers.

You father should’ve started collecting at 62.

He worked until death

That was his choice. It’s a risk many people take and come out on the short end.

Not even a risk. Work keeps a person vigorous and away from the nagging wife.