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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’d lie to interlude to to a new term. ”unpaid labor.”

Regardless, I believe you get half of a spouse’s benefit if you choose that instead of your own. So your spouse dies and your income is cut by 2/3rds. Hopefully your mortgage is paid off because that doesn’t magically decrease just because you are now single.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’d lie to interlude to to a new term. ”unpaid labor.”

Regardless, I believe you get half of a spouse’s benefit if you choose that instead of your own. So your spouse dies and your income is cut by 2/3rds. Hopefully your mortgage is paid off because that doesn’t magically decrease just because you are now single.

That should have started with “I’d like to introduce you to.”

[Anonymous]

It is amazing how many people paid into SS and have no idea how it works.

Moving forward in about two months it will be gone. Fun times for MAGA love this for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’d lie to interlude to to a new term. ”unpaid labor.”

Regardless, I believe you get half of a spouse’s benefit if you choose that instead of your own. So your spouse dies and your income is cut by 2/3rds. Hopefully your mortgage is paid off because that doesn’t magically decrease just because you are now single.

When your spouse dies, you step up to the higher benefit, losing the smaller one (the smaller one could be your own based on your work record, or the spousal benefit-half of your spouse's amount)

This is why the spouse with the larger benefit should generally wait until 70, if possible, to claim to maximize that benefit for the remaining spouse's lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plenty of us retire at 62 or earlier with a plan in place. You save on your own and any SS that might happen to still be paid out is just icing on the cake.

The main reason the average American cannot retire at 62 is healthcare. In my state, good care on the ACA would run a couple that is 62-64 at least $30K/year with a deductible of $9K/$18K. So any healthcare beyond basic well care could run you up to $50K/year.
Note: I define good care as an EPO (as close to a PPO as we can get in our state), where I can select my doctors and specialists from the entire network without requiring referrals. I want to keep the doctors I have, not be forced to switch to Kaiser and their doctors.
So I'd argue that is the main reason people don't/can't retire early. That extra $50Kfor 3 years is huge. (and more if you retire even earlier)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This use of the word scam sounds like a teenage follower of the current orange cult leader

Exactly- it's a tell when they use phrases like that or "Social security is a ponzi scheme". What they really mean is "I don't want to pay taxes to fund things for other people, I only want to pay taxes for things which directly benefit me"

Well it is a huge tax to pay for 40+ years and potentially never see any of it for yourself. Because facts are in 20 years it may not exist or will pay out much much less. It's 7.5% of your pay (for vast majority of Americans) and your employer also put in 7.5%. If the system had been managed properly, there would be enough money, or at least much closer to what is needed now, even with more elderly who are living longer. But it's been poorly managed over the years, and congress has used it to fund other things and not paid it back

[Anonymous]

It's 7.5% including Medicare.
And even if Congress does nothing (unlikely), SS will pay out 75% of scheduled benefits indefinitely. That's not nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People dying before they are able to collect is part of what keeps the system afloat. My mom died at 61. Obviously never collected.

But even when both spouses are able to collect their SS, they have to drop down to just the higher one (not both) after the first spouse dies. I thought everyone knew this.

Wow, outrageous

Why is it outrageous that one person gets one benefit and two people get two? Or, to put it another way, that people get benefits as long as they live but not after they die?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

really? i did not know this.

DP here. Yes. It's true for low earning wives too. So, as a SAHM, I don't qualify for SS on my own because I didn't work 40 quarters. So I will get an amount equal to half of my DH's amount, plus we will get his full amount. So we'll get 150% of the max amount while we are both still alive. The same is true if I worked 40+ quarters but just didn't make very much money. I could take 1/2 of his amount instead of my own amount if my amount was less.

Do people really not know this stuff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole point is to have a social safety net that doesn’t rely on people saving for themselves. Are you just going to let people starve in the streets?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point is to have a social safety net that doesn’t rely on people saving for themselves. Are you just going to let people starve in the streets?

+1

They can pull themselves up with their boomer bootstraps and work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

really? i did not know this.

DP here. Yes. It's true for low earning wives too. So, as a SAHM, I don't qualify for SS on my own because I didn't work 40 quarters. So I will get an amount equal to half of my DH's amount, plus we will get his full amount. So we'll get 150% of the max amount while we are both still alive. The same is true if I worked 40+ quarters but just didn't make very much money. I could take 1/2 of his amount instead of my own amount if my amount was less.

Do people really not know this stuff?

No, I don't know anything about SS and it's not like they advertise these benefits. I've been propagandized to think that SS won't be around when I reach retirement age anyway, so why bother learning the intricies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think the issue is that if you're upper middle class like my parents, you're likely to be healthier, live longer, and end up essentially subsidizing others. I get that it's supposed to be for the greater good of society, but honestly, I'm not feeling very charitable toward the government these days. I’d rather have the option to opt out.

If you live longer, you get benefits longer. Unless you are in the tiny number of people like your parents who somehow didn't understand that there is no reason to wait past 70 to claim. Wealthier people actually do better under Social Security in a lot of ways: they can afford to delay claiming to 70 and then get a higher monthly benefit, they tend to live longer so they get the advantage of more months of benefits even after delaying claiming, and they have income that was not subject to FICA (if your dad was making $200k 15 years ago, only about half his income had Social Security and Medicare withholding applied--see https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html). The person who gets screwed is the one who earned under the cap, paid FICA on all their earnings for decades, plans to claim at 65, and dies at 64. And that person is more likely to be poor than rich.

All true, just adding that the Republicans are about to eliminate taxes on income from social security which will only benefit the wealthy, because those whose only income is from social security don’t make enough to pay federal taxes at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People are just frustrated that your family made a huge financial error and you're blaming everyone but yourselves.

Like if you wrote a post that said "My mom put ice cream in the oven and it melted--feels like a scam" or "My mom drove with her hands on the pedals and her feet on the steering wheel and crashed--feels like a scam" and people were explaining why your understanding of things was incorrect, they wouldn't be protective of ice cream or ovens or cars. They would just be explaining facts about something they know more about than you do.

I will say I am actually protective of Social Security. I think it's one of the greatest things America has accomplished. It keeps millions of people out of poverty, and millions more wouldn't have been poor without it but are better off with it. I have seen the positive effects in my family and friends. Social Security transfers smoothly when people change jobs or live in different states--far better than other forms of retirement savings. If you tried to buy an annuity with the features Social Security has, like disability and survivor benefits and lifelong cost-of-living adjustments, it would be far more expensive--if any company would even offer it. I don't want to see Social Security weakened. It frustrates me when people don't understand it, and it frustrates me more when they decide that their lack of understanding is an indication that the program is flawed. There are problems with Social Security, but they are fixable. I'm really sorry that your family didn't learn more about Social Security when your dad died. I'm sorry he died young. I wish you'd gotten better advice, and I hope your story helps other people.

+1 it’s like that woman a few Thanksgivings ago who went viral blaming Marie Callender for ruining the pie that she clearly baked at 600 degrees for two hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

really? i did not know this.

DP here. Yes. It's true for low earning wives too. So, as a SAHM, I don't qualify for SS on my own because I didn't work 40 quarters. So I will get an amount equal to half of my DH's amount, plus we will get his full amount. So we'll get 150% of the max amount while we are both still alive. The same is true if I worked 40+ quarters but just didn't make very much money. I could take 1/2 of his amount instead of my own amount if my amount was less.

Do people really not know this stuff?

The one people often don't know is that even if a couple divorces, as long as the wife doesn't re-marry she can collect on her ex husband's social security based on his income if their marriage was at least ten years long.