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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I paid in $21k only over 29 years. I should get back ca $10k at 62. I plan to live until 92.
Even I'm getting screwed. Had the $21k been invested at $1000 a year when I started working, and then keep earning the 10% til I'm 62, I'd have ca $500k.
I could easily earn 7% a year on that forever.
So, instead of getting $35k, I'm getting $10k.
Too bad it's an insurance and not an investment.

Nobody can "easily" expect a 7% return on investment for decades on end, let alone 10%.
If you become disabled before retirement, your SS contributions would help you in a way your investments would not.

Have you looked at how likely it actually is to be disabled before retirement? Yeah, SSDI is part of Social Security, but only about 8–9% of people on Social Security are on disability, and qualifying is super strict. Most people who apply get denied, and a lot of disabilities are short-term anyway.

Honestly, it seems like people try to get labeled as disabled just to get something back after paying in for decades. That’s kind of the issue — when retirement and disability are bundled together, it creates weird incentives.

Maybe we need to just separate disability from Social Security altogether. If disability coverage is the concern, make that its own thing. Social Security should be for retirement, not trying to be everything at once.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all 17 pages, so maybe someone already posted this, but use an online calculator to figure out when to take SS.

DH and I are 61 now, he has higher earnings than me, and for many couples like us it makes sense for the lower earning spouse to take at 62 while the higher earning spouse waits longer.

Get your estimated retirement payments online from your SS account and plug them in.

https://opensocialsecurity.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

I wanted to run some actual estimates based on updated Social Security info (like the 2025 max benefit cap) to see if my concerns hold up. This is based on my parents’ situation, and I used chatgpt to help crunch the numbers using public sources.

Scenario 1: Dad worked until age 73, started collecting at 70, passed away at 73
Worked from age 20 to 73, with high earnings (above the taxable wage cap most years)
Estimated total lifetime Social Security contributions (employee + employer): ~$795,000
Max benefit at age 70 (2025): ~$5,108/month = ~$61,296/year
Collected for 3 years before passing:
$61,296 × 3 = ~$183,888 total payout
Shortfall vs. what he paid in: ~$611,000

Scenario 2: Mom worked until age 78, earning around $75K/year, subject to mandatory draw at 70
Worked from age 20 to 78
Estimated lifetime Social Security contributions: ~$372,000
By law, Social Security benefits must begin at 70 (mandatory draw), even if you’re still working
Estimated monthly benefit at 70 (with delayed retirement credits): ~$3,500/month
Collected from age 70 to 78 while still working: $3,500 × 12 months × 8 years = ~$336,000
Shortfall vs. what she paid in: ~$36,000
(She came close to breaking even due to the 8 years of mandatory draw)

Scenario 3: Mom collects Survivor Benefit (Dad’s) instead of her own
Receives Dad’s benefit of $5,108/month instead of her own, because it’s higher
Files at age 70 and collects for 5 years after retiring at 78
Total payout: $5,108 × 12 × 5 = ~$306,480
Her own ~$372,000 in contributions go unused
Combined contributions (Mom + Dad): ~$1,167,000
Combined payout (Dad’s 3 years + Mom’s 5 years on survivor benefit): ~$183,888 (Dad) + ~$306,480 (Mom) = ~$490,368
Combined shortfall: ~$676,000

Please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

a) it's insurance--you aren't guaranteed to get out what you put in. If your dad had known he was going to die at 73, it would have made sense to claim sooner, but of course not everyone knows when they'll die, and Social Security doesn't just insure against the risks of old age. If he'd died at age 40 and left minor children, your parents would have gotten out more than they put in but would you be happier?

b) your numbers are wrong. You are assuming your mom is going to live to 83. She could have gotten 13 years at (your assumed figure of) $5108. That's $796,848. If you add in the 3 years for your dad as $183,888 that's $980,736. Still not as much as they and their employers put in, but a lot closer.
And let's say your mom lives to 90. Had she claimed at 70, she'd get $1.226 million and she and your dad would get out more than they'd put in. That's not even counting the fact that there are guaranteed cost of living adjustments...your mom could live to 120 (50 years after the maximum claiming age) and SSA would pay her more each year.

It's true the math doesn't work well if your mom waits until age 79 to claim. But that's not the math's fault, or Social Security's fault. Your family should have done what nearly every other family does and understand that claiming beyond 70 makes no sense. It's in the fact sheet SSA mails to everyone over 70 with their Statements, or posts on the online accounts of people who made them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

I wanted to run some actual estimates based on updated Social Security info (like the 2025 max benefit cap) to see if my concerns hold up. This is based on my parents’ situation, and I used chatgpt to help crunch the numbers using public sources.

Scenario 1: Dad worked until age 73, started collecting at 70, passed away at 73
Worked from age 20 to 73, with high earnings (above the taxable wage cap most years)
Estimated total lifetime Social Security contributions (employee + employer): ~$795,000
Max benefit at age 70 (2025): ~$5,108/month = ~$61,296/year
Collected for 3 years before passing:
$61,296 × 3 = ~$183,888 total payout
Shortfall vs. what he paid in: ~$611,000

Scenario 2: Mom worked until age 78, earning around $75K/year, subject to mandatory draw at 70
Worked from age 20 to 78
Estimated lifetime Social Security contributions: ~$372,000
By law, Social Security benefits must begin at 70 (mandatory draw), even if you’re still working
Estimated monthly benefit at 70 (with delayed retirement credits): ~$3,500/month
Collected from age 70 to 78 while still working: $3,500 × 12 months × 8 years = ~$336,000
Shortfall vs. what she paid in: ~$36,000
(She came close to breaking even due to the 8 years of mandatory draw)

Scenario 3: Mom collects Survivor Benefit (Dad’s) instead of her own
Receives Dad’s benefit of $5,108/month instead of her own, because it’s higher
Files at age 70 and collects for 5 years after retiring at 78
Total payout: $5,108 × 12 × 5 = ~$306,480
Her own ~$372,000 in contributions go unused
Combined contributions (Mom + Dad): ~$1,167,000
Combined payout (Dad’s 3 years + Mom’s 5 years on survivor benefit): ~$183,888 (Dad) + ~$306,480 (Mom) = ~$490,368
Combined shortfall: ~$676,000

Please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

LOL and the pendulum has swung back from "who can navigate to a website to read the FAQs???" to "Monte Carlo sims have repeatedly shown . . . "

You're ridiculous OP. Nothing about this thread is believable and you're not disproving the value of Social Security. The rest of us know how it works and recognize the value of not having 70+% of elderly people destitute on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

I wanted to run some actual estimates based on updated Social Security info (like the 2025 max benefit cap) to see if my concerns hold up. This is based on my parents’ situation, and I used chatgpt to help crunch the numbers using public sources.

Scenario 1: Dad worked until age 73, started collecting at 70, passed away at 73
Worked from age 20 to 73, with high earnings (above the taxable wage cap most years)
Estimated total lifetime Social Security contributions (employee + employer): ~$795,000
Max benefit at age 70 (2025): ~$5,108/month = ~$61,296/year
Collected for 3 years before passing:
$61,296 × 3 = ~$183,888 total payout
Shortfall vs. what he paid in: ~$611,000

Scenario 2: Mom worked until age 78, earning around $75K/year, subject to mandatory draw at 70
Worked from age 20 to 78
Estimated lifetime Social Security contributions: ~$372,000
By law, Social Security benefits must begin at 70 (mandatory draw), even if you’re still working
Estimated monthly benefit at 70 (with delayed retirement credits): ~$3,500/month
Collected from age 70 to 78 while still working: $3,500 × 12 months × 8 years = ~$336,000
Shortfall vs. what she paid in: ~$36,000
(She came close to breaking even due to the 8 years of mandatory draw)

Scenario 3: Mom collects Survivor Benefit (Dad’s) instead of her own
Receives Dad’s benefit of $5,108/month instead of her own, because it’s higher
Files at age 70 and collects for 5 years after retiring at 78
Total payout: $5,108 × 12 × 5 = ~$306,480
Her own ~$372,000 in contributions go unused
Combined contributions (Mom + Dad): ~$1,167,000
Combined payout (Dad’s 3 years + Mom’s 5 years on survivor benefit): ~$183,888 (Dad) + ~$306,480 (Mom) = ~$490,368
Combined shortfall: ~$676,000

Please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

The real issue is this. If you aren’t taxed, people aren’t going to put that money away for retirement. I mean look at the abysmal rates of savings as it is. So that means that people who can’t work any longer and don’t have families are going to be on Medicaid and living in shelters. As a society, we’ve decided we don’t want that. And we don’t want to take care of our parents and older relatives. Some get more benefits than others. But overall it’s how we as a society make sure everyone is cared for when they need to be.

[Anonymous]

Social security is a safety net so senior citizens are not living in (and dying from) poverty. It is NOT a savings plan. Nobody is entitled to "get back" what they contributed. What you get is the assurance that you will have some source of income your entire retirement. You are correct that those who live longer get more $ out of the benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I paid in $21k only over 29 years. I should get back ca $10k at 62. I plan to live until 92.
Even I'm getting screwed. Had the $21k been invested at $1000 a year when I started working, and then keep earning the 10% til I'm 62, I'd have ca $500k.
I could easily earn 7% a year on that forever.
So, instead of getting $35k, I'm getting $10k.
Too bad it's an insurance and not an investment.

Nobody can "easily" expect a 7% return on investment for decades on end, let alone 10%.
If you become disabled before retirement, your SS contributions would help you in a way your investments would not.

Have you looked at how likely it actually is to be disabled before retirement? Yeah, SSDI is part of Social Security, but only about 8–9% of people on Social Security are on disability, and qualifying is super strict. Most people who apply get denied, and a lot of disabilities are short-term anyway.

Honestly, it seems like people try to get labeled as disabled just to get something back after paying in for decades. That’s kind of the issue — when retirement and disability are bundled together, it creates weird incentives.

Maybe we need to just separate disability from Social Security altogether. If disability coverage is the concern, make that its own thing. Social Security should be for retirement, not trying to be everything at once.

1 in 3 people die or go on disability before full retirement age. It's not uncommon. I agree the standards for SSDI are strict, and you're right that it doesn't cover short-term disability. Not sure how that squares with your perception that "people try to get labeled as disabled just to get something back." It's hard to get SSDI, most people are rejected, and you can't earn much while keeping your benefits. Plus it takes close to a year to get an initial decision, so you'd have to leave the workforce for months and gather a bunch of medical records for the slim chance that you get approved (only about 30% get approved at the initial level). Not a risk people are likely to take if they have any ability to keep working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

I wanted to run some actual estimates based on updated Social Security info (like the 2025 max benefit cap) to see if my concerns hold up. This is based on my parents’ situation, and I used chatgpt to help crunch the numbers using public sources.

Scenario 1: Dad worked until age 73, started collecting at 70, passed away at 73
Worked from age 20 to 73, with high earnings (above the taxable wage cap most years)
Estimated total lifetime Social Security contributions (employee + employer): ~$795,000
Max benefit at age 70 (2025): ~$5,108/month = ~$61,296/year
Collected for 3 years before passing:
$61,296 × 3 = ~$183,888 total payout
Shortfall vs. what he paid in: ~$611,000

Scenario 2: Mom worked until age 78, earning around $75K/year, subject to mandatory draw at 70
Worked from age 20 to 78
Estimated lifetime Social Security contributions: ~$372,000
By law, Social Security benefits must begin at 70 (mandatory draw), even if you’re still working
Estimated monthly benefit at 70 (with delayed retirement credits): ~$3,500/month
Collected from age 70 to 78 while still working: $3,500 × 12 months × 8 years = ~$336,000
Shortfall vs. what she paid in: ~$36,000
(She came close to breaking even due to the 8 years of mandatory draw)

Scenario 3: Mom collects Survivor Benefit (Dad’s) instead of her own
Receives Dad’s benefit of $5,108/month instead of her own, because it’s higher
Files at age 70 and collects for 5 years after retiring at 78
Total payout: $5,108 × 12 × 5 = ~$306,480
Her own ~$372,000 in contributions go unused
Combined contributions (Mom + Dad): ~$1,167,000
Combined payout (Dad’s 3 years + Mom’s 5 years on survivor benefit): ~$183,888 (Dad) + ~$306,480 (Mom) = ~$490,368
Combined shortfall: ~$676,000

Please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

The real issue is this. If you aren’t taxed, people aren’t going to put that money away for retirement. I mean look at the abysmal rates of savings as it is. So that means that people who can’t work any longer and don’t have families are going to be on Medicaid and living in shelters. As a society, we’ve decided we don’t want that. And we don’t want to take care of our parents and older relatives. Some get more benefits than others. But overall it’s how we as a society make sure everyone is cared for when they need to be.

". As a society, we’ve decided we don’t want that. And we don’t want to take care of our parents and older relatives."

WOW! this hit me, I would absolutely take care of my parents however we are asian so maybe this is a cultural thing where in the US we expect the govt to take care of them rather than the family?

Taking that into consideration should i shift my mindset and say nevermind parents you are going to be taken care of by the govt i am going to worry about myself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security is a safety net so senior citizens are not living in (and dying from) poverty. It is NOT a savings plan. Nobody is entitled to "get back" what they contributed. What you get is the assurance that you will have some source of income your entire retirement. You are correct that those who live longer get more $ out of the benefit.

NP. I know two families where a parent died young of cancer with minor children in the house, and the survivor benefits were important contributors to the family's financial health. Both of those unlucky people had access to health insurance. They just had very bad, unbeatable cancers.

[Anonymous]

It's insurance so people aren't destitute. For those that have been making over the cap for years this is supposed to be a nice add on and not their main source of retirement. And no they probably won't get what they paid in if they die early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

Gonna pull this quote because it is a summary of your deep, deep misunderstanding (still!) of what social security old age insurance is. The money your mother is currently collecting is not, primarily, the money she paid in. That money went to pay retirees when she was working. The money your mother is collecting, in a way, is the tax you and your siblings are paying every year on your earnings. People think of it as an investment or similar, but again, it is NOT. It's a transfer from current workers to former workers so that they aren't poor and destitute when they are too old to work. It's also not supposed to be a retirement plan, although it has evolved into functionally being that for many people, especially those who are in the bottom say 60% of earnings. They just didn't earn enough to functionally save enough for retirement.

So to answer your question- that money isn't "gone". It does go to pay someone else who happened to live to 87 or whatever, and collected more than what they "paid in". That's the way the whole thing is constructed, based on actuarial tables, averages, etc. It's simply not meant to solve the problem you think it is. Your family is rich, and has paid a significant amount of taxes over their lifetime to help people with much less money stay in their homes, be fed, etc. In the long run it's a huge benefit to you because most of those people probably did service jobs making food for your parents, providing nursing care, fixing their cars, etc. It's called living in a society. Take the win- your family is rich, and a good amount of that money is likely due to the societal stability and growth that happened for the last 90 years because of programs like social security. We all better hope it isn't all burned to the ground in the next 4 years so the richest people in the world can get richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

I wanted to run some actual estimates based on updated Social Security info (like the 2025 max benefit cap) to see if my concerns hold up. This is based on my parents’ situation, and I used chatgpt to help crunch the numbers using public sources.

Scenario 1: Dad worked until age 73, started collecting at 70, passed away at 73
Worked from age 20 to 73, with high earnings (above the taxable wage cap most years)
Estimated total lifetime Social Security contributions (employee + employer): ~$795,000
Max benefit at age 70 (2025): ~$5,108/month = ~$61,296/year
Collected for 3 years before passing:
$61,296 × 3 = ~$183,888 total payout
Shortfall vs. what he paid in: ~$611,000

Scenario 2: Mom worked until age 78, earning around $75K/year, subject to mandatory draw at 70
Worked from age 20 to 78
Estimated lifetime Social Security contributions: ~$372,000
By law, Social Security benefits must begin at 70 (mandatory draw), even if you’re still working
Estimated monthly benefit at 70 (with delayed retirement credits): ~$3,500/month
Collected from age 70 to 78 while still working: $3,500 × 12 months × 8 years = ~$336,000
Shortfall vs. what she paid in: ~$36,000
(She came close to breaking even due to the 8 years of mandatory draw)

Scenario 3: Mom collects Survivor Benefit (Dad’s) instead of her own
Receives Dad’s benefit of $5,108/month instead of her own, because it’s higher
Files at age 70 and collects for 5 years after retiring at 78
Total payout: $5,108 × 12 × 5 = ~$306,480
Her own ~$372,000 in contributions go unused
Combined contributions (Mom + Dad): ~$1,167,000
Combined payout (Dad’s 3 years + Mom’s 5 years on survivor benefit): ~$183,888 (Dad) + ~$306,480 (Mom) = ~$490,368
Combined shortfall: ~$676,000

Please correct me if my numbers are wrong.

The real issue is this. If you aren’t taxed, people aren’t going to put that money away for retirement. I mean look at the abysmal rates of savings as it is. So that means that people who can’t work any longer and don’t have families are going to be on Medicaid and living in shelters. As a society, we’ve decided we don’t want that. And we don’t want to take care of our parents and older relatives. Some get more benefits than others. But overall it’s how we as a society make sure everyone is cared for when they need to be.

". As a society, we’ve decided we don’t want that. And we don’t want to take care of our parents and older relatives."

WOW! this hit me, I would absolutely take care of my parents however we are asian so maybe this is a cultural thing where in the US we expect the govt to take care of them rather than the family?

Taking that into consideration should i shift my mindset and say nevermind parents you are going to be taken care of by the govt i am going to worry about myself?

It's not taken care of by the government it's benefiting from forced contribution government programs. Medicare, too. Try getting health coverage for a sick 80 year old or do you want to pay cash? You may not be able to,afford foregoing SSA and Medicare AND educate kids AND provide for your old age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

Your assumptions are bad.

Most millennials will not be in married couples where both people work into their 70s. Many millennials aren't getting or staying married in a way that qualifies for spousal benefits. Many people will be unable to work past 70--because the jobs are too physically or mentally demanding for their abilities, they want to retire, they need to provide care for family members, they get laid off, they died long before reaching age 70 (plenty of people die in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s...).

And of the people who are working past 70, few die in their early 70s. Many will live into their 90s or 100s.

What happened to your dad--a high earner who delayed claiming and died before the breakeven point--is not common. It certainly happens: it's the nature of insurance that some people get out less than they put in. But far more common are early claimers who die on the young side, and late claimers who live for decades past 70.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here I’ll respond.

I’ll admit, I was confused at first. I’ve been going back and forth between my phone and computer, so some of my earlier posts weren’t worded as clearly as I’d like. But I’ve been reading the replies and trying to understand it better.

That said, I still feel like Social Security doesn’t really fit everyone equally — especially for people in the upper middle class who already have other protections in place. What surprised me most wasn’t just how confusing it felt, but how quickly people jumped to insult me for even bringing it up. Only a few acknowledged that it is confusing for a lot of people, which is honestly what got me thinking in the first place.

I totally understand my long-term and short-term disability insurance. I understand how term vs. whole life insurance works. I understand how a 401k works. But Social Security? It still feels unclear, and honestly, that’s part of why I’m not sure I even want it — because I don’t fully understand what I’m actually getting.

Maybe I’m missing something. I can see how the system helps in cases of disability or job loss, but for someone like me who already has coverage through work and pays extra for supplemental protection, it doesn’t feel like a good fit.

My mom worked her whole life and I didn’t realize she’d only get one benefit — hers or my dad’s, not both. That really threw me. I’m not saying we should throw the whole system out, but if you want people like me to understand and support it, it helps to explain it — not mock the people asking questions.

Because some of what you are saying is so incredibly and unbelievably stupid that it is difficult to refrain from calling you out. The purpose, function, and limitation of SS has been explained many times on this thread by several posters. If you really can’t understand by now, then maybe this just isn’t one of your gifts. Recognize that there are financial advisors and all sorts of professionals who DO understand these things and let them carry you.

Ok, call me stupid if you want, but you're still not showing the actual value of Social Security, just repeating how it works and saying I should accept it or move. That doesn't answer the questions.

Let’s say my mom took my dad’s survivor benefit for 15 years before retiring. Does that really equal what he paid into the system over decades? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, and maybe it balances out for people who live a long time, but it’s not clear. The payout seems to depend a lot on timing and life expectancy.

What if both spouses worked their whole lives, collected benefits for just 5 years, and then died? Where does all the money they paid in go? It’s just gone?

I’m a millennial. Most of us don’t have pensions and will likely work into our 70s. If both spouses do that and only live a few years after retiring, do we actually get back what we put in? Or are we funding a system that won’t return nearly as much as we contributed?

If the common norm for my generation, as it seems happened with my mom, is that both spouses work into their 70s and pass not long after, will the mandatory draw from Social Security even equal what we put in?

Your assumptions are bad.

Most millennials will not be in married couples where both people work into their 70s. Many millennials aren't getting or staying married in a way that qualifies for spousal benefits. Many people will be unable to work past 70--because the jobs are too physically or mentally demanding for their abilities, they want to retire, they need to provide care for family members, they get laid off, they died long before reaching age 70 (plenty of people die in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s...).

And of the people who are working past 70, few die in their early 70s. Many will live into their 90s or 100s.

What happened to your dad--a high earner who delayed claiming and died before the breakeven point--is not common. It certainly happens: it's the nature of insurance that some people get out less than they put in. But far more common are early claimers who die on the young side, and late claimers who live for decades past 70.

The average retirement age is 62...due to illness or getting fired:

Why do so many of us retire sooner than we had hoped?

Simply put: Life happens.

In the Transamerica report, nearly half of those who retired earlier than planned blamed their health: physical limitations, illness or disability. Roughly two-fifths blamed their jobs: They were laid off, downsized or lured into early retirement, or they were no longer happy at work.

[Anonymous]

The different culture responses about government vs family caring for elderly maybe gives me insight into why Musk thinks it's just waste.
He didn't grow up with grandparents, neighbors, etc. living in it. It's not baked into his worldview. Probably isn't for most who didn't live here as children.