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

[Anonymous]

here's the check estimator. Use it before it gets doged.
https://secure.ssa.gov/RIL/SiView.action

[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 get it. You will take the time to "explore" how to get rid of the system, but wouldn't take the time to "explore" your parent's options when your dad was living, or even right after he died. More and more you are showing your true agenda, OP. Do you even had a mother who is nearly 80 and hasn't claimed SS yet?

You turn people against you when you blatantly lie for an agenda.

[Anonymous]

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

The scam is that sahms who didn't work 40 quarters can claim SS through their spouse while their spouse is still alive. That's what annoys me as a working woman. If you and your spouse spent your whole lives living on one income, why do you need 2 in retirement?

I have no issue with a widowed spouse receiving the SS payment of whoever's was the highest. DH and I's grandpas all died early and it was hard enough for our grandmas to survive on 1 social security check, particularly when they reached their 90s and it hadn't kept up with COL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally get the skepticism . But this is my experience and perhaps i am an anomly or maybe i am not? My mom worked her whole life, kept paying in, and was caught off guard when found out she’d only get one benefit, not both hers and my dad’s.

I looked it up just to see if others were confused too turns out 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t know how much of their income it will replace. That’s from a 2023 Nationwide Retirement Institute survey:
https://news.nationwide.com/082223-adults-believe-social-security-benefits-will-dry-up

So yeah, it’s not just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The scam is that sahms who didn't work 40 quarters can claim SS through their spouse while their spouse is still alive. That's what annoys me as a working woman. If you and your spouse spent your whole lives living on one income, why do you need 2 in retirement?

I have no issue with a widowed spouse receiving the SS payment of whoever's was the highest. DH and I's grandpas all died early and it was hard enough for our grandmas to survive on 1 social security check, particularly when they reached their 90s and it hadn't kept up with COL.

Your annoyance at spousal rights shows you are missing the point of SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally get the skepticism . But this is my experience and perhaps i am an anomly or maybe i am not? My mom worked her whole life, kept paying in, and was caught off guard when found out she’d only get one benefit, not both hers and my dad’s.

I looked it up just to see if others were confused too turns out 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t know how much of their income it will replace. That’s from a 2023 Nationwide Retirement Institute survey:
https://news.nationwide.com/082223-adults-believe-social-security-benefits-will-dry-up

So yeah, it’s not just me.

...but she could have received her own benefit. It wasn't cut off. She chose the higher amount.

[Anonymous]

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.

In this case, she takes his as it's likely the higher amount. Had your dad lived longer, he would get to college up until his death, even if it was 100. IMO that is okay. Because your mom and/or dad also would have gotten to collect if they were disabled at any point in life, and had dad died with kids under 18 at home, they would also get to collect.
So yes, it's something you pay into, but it's also there to help people who may collect way more than they put in (like disabled kids/adults).

Be glad she gets to take your dad's higher amount for her hopefully long life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your dad could have collected it starting at age 62. I don’t understand your complaint.

This!!! For most people, it is a much better deal to just take it at 62. For precisely the example of your dad---you never know when you will die. It's only "better to wait" if you live to 85/90+ (or approximately something like that). But you never know what the govt will do (even pre this Shi$). so always take it early

[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.

I imagine that's true, OP. If the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that the US is filled with a distressingly large number of blithering idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally get the skepticism . But this is my experience and perhaps i am an anomly or maybe i am not? My mom worked her whole life, kept paying in, and was caught off guard when found out she’d only get one benefit, not both hers and my dad’s.

I looked it up just to see if others were confused too turns out 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t know how much of their income it will replace. That’s from a 2023 Nationwide Retirement Institute survey:
https://news.nationwide.com/082223-adults-believe-social-security-benefits-will-dry-up

So yeah, it’s not just me.

Yes this thread doesn't seem legit. First the OP seems like a completely clueless person who has never researched social security, no political agenda just genuine shock at the unfairness of her personal situation but then comes back later with a different tone and researched facts (if that's OP's style my bet is she would have known how SS works to begin with).

And i don't know if others noticed but there are other weird comments in this thread "oh my goodness i didnt know either, but now that i know i am not neutral on SS anymore. i am against it". Won't lose time going back to that post for the exact wording but i flagged it to Jeff. I think we are seeing an organized thread against SS.

This belongs to the political forum and shouldn't be hidden under false pretense and fake personal situations. Take your masks off and go advance Musk's agenda in the political forum if you dare.

[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.

I think that AARP may owe OP an apology, because they drafted the paragraph you say is misleading.

[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.

I think that AARP may owe OP an apology, because they drafted the paragraph you say is misleading.

Nah, scroll down. On the same page:

"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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 AND this is such an untrue statement:

"She assumed, like many people probably do, that she’d get both her and my dad’s benefits."

At this point you have to be supremely stupid, even not understanding much about SS, to think you'd get anyone else's benefits? It never occurred to me, since I pay in, that I'd get anyone else's benefits. (I'm not even really expecting my own)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your dad could have collected it starting at age 62. I don’t understand your complaint.

This!!! For most people, it is a much better deal to just take it at 62. For precisely the example of your dad---you never know when you will die. It's only "better to wait" if you live to 85/90+ (or approximately something like that). But you never know what the govt will do (even pre this Shi$). so always take it early

This is not uniformly true. There are calculators to help determine when best to take one's benefit. And taking at 62 if you don't need it presupposes that the person will invest it, not just spend it. And many people don't even bother with contributing to a retirement plan through their jobs. It's irresponsible to make blind, general statements like this. Stupid people like OP will not do their own research, do it wrong based on your advice, then come back and blame you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally get the skepticism . But this is my experience and perhaps i am an anomly or maybe i am not? My mom worked her whole life, kept paying in, and was caught off guard when found out she’d only get one benefit, not both hers and my dad’s.

I looked it up just to see if others were confused too turns out 42% of adults don’t know how much they’ll get from Social Security, and 51% don’t know how much of their income it will replace. That’s from a 2023 Nationwide Retirement Institute survey:
https://news.nationwide.com/082223-adults-believe-social-security-benefits-will-dry-up

So yeah, it’s not just me.

Yes this thread doesn't seem legit. First the OP seems like a completely clueless person who has never researched social security, no political agenda just genuine shock at the unfairness of her personal situation but then comes back later with a different tone and researched facts (if that's OP's style my bet is she would have known how SS works to begin with).

And i don't know if others noticed but there are other weird comments in this thread "oh my goodness i didnt know either, but now that i know i am not neutral on SS anymore. i am against it". Won't lose time going back to that post for the exact wording but i flagged it to Jeff. I think we are seeing an organized thread against SS.

This belongs to the political forum and shouldn't be hidden under false pretense and fake personal situations. Take your masks off and go advance Musk's agenda in the political forum if you dare.

You nailed it, such transparent trolling and stirring the pot.