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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I think we are saying the same thing. I meant FDR needed the Dixiecrat votes to get the legislation passed because he didn’t have enough congressional democrats and Republicans support outside of the south to pass it . It was a huge compromise that he agreed to in order to save the bill—he basically gave up protection for much of the Southern poor.

I should also note that I think under the original version of the law, each worker only got their own benefits. There were a ton of women that worked on drafting the legislation and they pointed out that this would really screw most women, who suffered pay discrimination and also often worked less or outside the regulated labor market due to family obligations. So they fought for women to be paid at their husbands higher rates once their husband had passed away. This was an important feminist move at the time. And I’m sure OP’s mom is glad to get the higher rate instead of her own lower benefit rate.

It’s sort of sad that OP doesn’t understand what a defined benefit pension is…. By definition, people who live longer get more and people who die sooner get less. That’s generally a good thing because you don’t want to outlive your income. (My grandfather died at 57 and never got a day of social security or his pension. But his wife lived to 110, and I’m sure he would have been thrilled to know she was getting that money.). Back in the days when most people had real pensions, people understood that. In the private pension world, you generally can elect whether you want your spouse to have a survivors benefit after you pass (which results in a lower benefit during the course of your life) — in Social security OAI that is built into the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah, big words and hyperbole - we found the PhD!

Of course OP’s deceased father doesn’t need money, but her mother does - that’s the whole point of her post.

[Anonymous]

Wow they need to call out what it is. Socialist (or community) security program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow they need to call out what it is. Socialist (or community) security program

This why we can't have nice (socially beneficial) things.

I don't want to live in the "everyone for themselves", "rich and lucky get everything" pure capitalist society that leaves the poor and unlucky unable to survive.

If you are an American and have a good standard of living, you should consider it a patriotic duty to help keep our society from becoming a cruel dystopia.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think it's quite fair that your mom doesn't get to double dip. Once people die they no longer qualify for the benefit. Should you also be able to collect on both as their child? SHe is collecting a higher amount because your dad paid into it. THat's it and I'm glad she doesn't get to have both.

[Anonymous]

Everything else well covered, But OP Wrote Her Subject Line Like a Personal Confession in Title Caps Like a Cosmo Article -- Cannot Unsee That

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But she wouldn't know how to apply for those. Someone needs to spoon feed her the information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow they need to call out what it is. Socialist (or community) security program

That is the name. Social Security.
Has Republican Capitalist MAGA brainrot taken so much away from you?
You now think "social" is a dirty word?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow they need to call out what it is. Socialist (or community) security program

Every ranking of the top happiest and least stressed countries is basically all European countries with generous social programs, with the Nordic countries usually at the top.

As one economist once wrote, in the US everything important (education, healthcare, childcare, retirement, elder care) is expensive, and everything unimportant (clothes, electronics, etc.) is cheap.

Let's face it, you wouldn't care much about keeping your SS contributions if childcare, healthcare, education, elder care, etc. was free. You only care because so much of life in the US is exorbitant.

[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.

It is becoming clearer that OP is simply trying to support the abolition of Social Security.

The good news is that the thread has been instructive for a lot of people in learning how SS actually works. Plan accordingly, people.

[Anonymous]

A woman gets to withdraw benefits greater than what she paid in, and OP calls it a scam against the woman? LOL. Troll.

[Anonymous]

It seems like Social Security hasn’t really evolved with how much life and work have changed. The system was created in a time when most households had one income earner and people didn’t live long after retiring. Now, we have dual-income families, people living decades into retirement, and more complex financial lives — but the structure of Social Security hasn’t really kept pace.

In my mom’s case, she worked her entire life, continued paying in even after my dad passed, and didn’t fully understand how survivor benefits worked. She assumed, like many people probably do, that she’d get both her and my dad’s benefits. But she ended up only getting the higher of the two, which came as a surprise.

And I’m clearly not alone in that confusion. A recent survey found that 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t understand how much of their income it will replace. That’s a pretty big gap in understanding for a program most of us pay into our entire working lives.

This isn’t to knock the system entirely — it has helped many people. But maybe it’s time to start quietly exploring some options that better reflect today’s realities. A little more flexibility or clarity might go a long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Social Security hasn’t really evolved with how much life and work have changed. The system was created in a time when most households had one income earner and people didn’t live long after retiring. Now, we have dual-income families, people living decades into retirement, and more complex financial lives — but the structure of Social Security hasn’t really kept pace.

In my mom’s case, she worked her entire life, continued paying in even after my dad passed, and didn’t fully understand how survivor benefits worked. She assumed, like many people probably do, that she’d get both her and my dad’s benefits. But she ended up only getting the higher of the two, which came as a surprise.

And I’m clearly not alone in that confusion. A recent survey found that 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t understand how much of their income it will replace. That’s a pretty big gap in understanding for a program most of us pay into our entire working lives.

This isn’t to knock the system entirely — it has helped many people. But maybe it’s time to start quietly exploring some options that better reflect today’s realities. A little more flexibility or clarity might go a long way.

LOL this is the least authentic "I'm a real person, promise!" post so far - tell me more about these recent surveys you have at your fingertips while you post completely credulous "but surely it's supposed to be a family savings plan that you don't tap until you're 80 years old, right?" hypotheticals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Social Security hasn’t really evolved with how much life and work have changed. The system was created in a time when most households had one income earner and people didn’t live long after retiring. Now, we have dual-income families, people living decades into retirement, and more complex financial lives — but the structure of Social Security hasn’t really kept pace.

In my mom’s case, she worked her entire life, continued paying in even after my dad passed, and didn’t fully understand how survivor benefits worked. She assumed, like many people probably do, that she’d get both her and my dad’s benefits. But she ended up only getting the higher of the two, which came as a surprise.

And I’m clearly not alone in that confusion. A recent survey found that 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t understand how much of their income it will replace. That’s a pretty big gap in understanding for a program most of us pay into our entire working lives.

This isn’t to knock the system entirely — it has helped many people. But maybe it’s time to start quietly exploring some options that better reflect today’s realities. A little more flexibility or clarity might go a long way.

I have never heard anyone say or think that besides you, OP. Its very clear to most people that you wouldn't get two social security checks--one for you and one for your dead spouse--. Your spouse is dead and no longer needs support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security is a bad return on investment for some and a good return on investment for others. No one knows which group they are in until the end.

oh, I'm in the middle and know already.