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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How can we communicate this idea to the public? As I mentioned I never thought of it that way, I thought of it as a retirement benefit. The idea of greater good to the society seems positive however many people think it's a retirement plan, including myself! I am not going to debate if its good or bad for society but if everyone thought of it that way i think we would see either greater support or possibly lower support.

[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?

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.

Would people opt not to take that path if it wasn't an option, of course i would try to retire at 62 knowing i can draw on retirement at that time.

[Anonymous]

Clearly there needs to be a lot of education done about what the Social Security program actually is, and what it isn’t.

I think it’s helpful to think of it more as insurance, than our retirement plan, but even the insurance analogy doesn’t really paint the full picture.

AARP does some helpful education about this — AARP.org/socialsecurity

[Anonymous]

I am surprised OP's parents didn't know how SS was structured. Surely they'd pick up over time, including from their own parents, or all their friends, how SS works for couples and when someone is widowed.

My parents get both SS and pensions. My father is slowly dying. We know when he passes away my mother will get the larger of the SS (his) and a 1/3 reduction in his pension but she gets the income for life. They knew this 50 years ago when they started working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How can we communicate this idea to the public? As I mentioned I never thought of it that way, I thought of it as a retirement benefit. The idea of greater good to the society seems positive however many people think it's a retirement plan, including myself! I am not going to debate if its good or bad for society but if everyone thought of it that way i think we would see either greater support or possibly lower support.

Greater support than...87% of the public?

https://www.nirsonline.org/reports/socialsecurity2024/#:~:text=Americans%20overwhelmingly%20support%20Social%20Security,term%20sustainability%20of%20Social%20Security.

The reason you see such broad based support, I think, is because for the bottom 60% or so of Americans (in terms of income), it functionally is their retirement plan, and does that job well enough all things considered. For the next 30% on the income scale, it is a significant source of income during retirement, probably making the difference in being able to take trips, buy nice things for grandkids, add to college savings, etc. And then there is the top 10%, who see it as a way to steal their hard earned money by giving it to poor freeloaders.

Again, it was designed this way from the start- everyone pays for it, and everyone gets benefits at a certain age. That's why it has such broad-based support. How people choose to think of it, or how outsiders choose to describe it, SSA can't really do anything about that at a certain point. Behind the scenes, yes absolutely a huge part of the reason it fundamentally works is because of actuarial tables and people like your father, who die earlier than their expected age. But as others have said, on average that happens much more often with lower income people, because on average they live significantly shorter lives.

[Anonymous]

PP - forgot to mention. Social Security gives you that earnings report because your eventual Social Security payment is a percentage of your lifetime earnings (or your spouse’s). Not because you’re gonna get out the same dollar amount that you paid into the system.

[Anonymous]

My dad collected disability and I got SSA survivors benefits for 6 years. Grateful. We were LMC and mother's salary left little to spare.

[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?

Family absolutely should be the first line of defense. A pet peeve I have is people who can afford to support their parents or mentally or medically disabled kids sloughing this off to the tax payer.

in another thread, I mentioned that my investment goal is to ensure that my two kids with these issues never become a charge on the public purse. Someone responded that this is absolutely where government should step in.

Sorry but if I can afford this, I should direct my funds to ensuring my kids support, not high end vacation, second homes, large contributions at charity balls and the like so they have no recourse but to government, that is, my fellow taxpayers,for support.

Would be totally different if I were in straitened financial circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can we communicate this idea to the public? As I mentioned I never thought of it that way, I thought of it as a retirement benefit. The idea of greater good to the society seems positive however many people think it's a retirement plan, including myself! I am not going to debate if its good or bad for society but if everyone thought of it that way i think we would see either greater support or possibly lower support.

Greater support than...87% of the public?

https://www.nirsonline.org/reports/socialsecurity2024/#:~:text=Americans%20overwhelmingly%20support%20Social%20Security,term%20sustainability%20of%20Social%20Security.

The reason you see such broad based support, I think, is because for the bottom 60% or so of Americans (in terms of income), it functionally is their retirement plan, and does that job well enough all things considered. For the next 30% on the income scale, it is a significant source of income during retirement, probably making the difference in being able to take trips, buy nice things for grandkids, add to college savings, etc. And then there is the top 10%, who see it as a way to steal their hard earned money by giving it to poor freeloaders.

Again, it was designed this way from the start- everyone pays for it, and everyone gets benefits at a certain age. That's why it has such broad-based support. How people choose to think of it, or how outsiders choose to describe it, SSA can't really do anything about that at a certain point. Behind the scenes, yes absolutely a huge part of the reason it fundamentally works is because of actuarial tables and people like your father, who die earlier than their expected age. But as others have said, on average that happens much more often with lower income people, because on average they live significantly shorter lives.

Sure, there’s broad support for Social Security in general, but that doesn’t mean people think it shouldn’t change. If you actually look at generational data, it’s a different story.

According to a recent Newsweek article, millennials and Gen Z are turning against the current Social Security system, and the split is pretty clear: younger Americans are questioning whether they’ll ever see the benefits they’re paying into — or whether the program is even sustainable long term. https://www.newsweek.com/young-americans-turn-against-boomers-over-social-security-1852732

So yeah, boomers and older Gen X might overwhelmingly support keeping it as-is, but younger generations don’t trust the system and want serious reform. That doesn’t mean no safety net — it just means the structure doesn’t match how we live and work today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

OH BS.

Musk isn't there to save money you idiot.

He is there to take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OH BS.

Musk isn't there to save money you idiot.

He is there to take it.

And he's going to spend it on colonizing Mars.

If you think your money is wasted today, just wait til the rocket boys 🚀 get even more funding.

[Anonymous]

SS payments are over by the end of 2025.

Musk and Trump are gutting that.

There is no reality anyone is getting their monies past that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SS payments are over by the end of 2025.

Musk and Trump are gutting that.

There is no reality anyone is getting their monies past that point.

Would a buyout be offered similar to how fork and twitter went?

[Anonymous]

Wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, there’s broad support for Social Security in general, but that doesn’t mean people think it shouldn’t change. If you actually look at generational data, it’s a different story.

According to a recent Newsweek article, millennials and Gen Z are turning against the current Social Security system, and the split is pretty clear: younger Americans are questioning whether they’ll ever see the benefits they’re paying into — or whether the program is even sustainable long term. https://www.newsweek.com/young-americans-turn-against-boomers-over-social-security-1852732

So yeah, boomers and older Gen X might overwhelmingly support keeping it as-is, but younger generations don’t trust the system and want serious reform. That doesn’t mean no safety net — it just means the structure doesn’t match how we live and work today.

Your choice of using broad language like the bolded shows your continued lack of understanding of how the program works, and the actual challenges ahead, which yes are very real.

They aren't really about "trust" and "how we live and work today"- they are about significant and long-running demographic changes that have to inevitably lead to higher taxes and lower benefits. It just comes down to fewer workers per senior, and seniors living longer, on average. The core political problem is what you identify- current beneficiaries have zero incentive to support cuts to their benefits, and they vote in much higher numbers than younger generations.

Back in the early 80s these issues were already apparent, and the government was still functional enough that they could make changes to make the system stable for almost 45 years. There are solutions that should work in the grand scheme of things, but its tough to imagine a political scenario in which those could get into a bill which could pass. That's the fault of everyone, but from this rando's internet perspective, a lot of if is because of the poisoning of the political system in the last 50 years, mostly by the conservative movement. It's worked out well for their benefactors though! They have the low taxes they have been pushing for.