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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm OK with that. They will have only stolen some and not all of my money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm OK with that. They will have only stolen some and not all of my money.

How old are you? Some of us have been paying in for 20+ years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think this gets passed. They will have to choose between a greater tax break for the Uber rich and a no tax on social security and tips. They won’t get both. My bet on the hedge fund group getting their promised tax cut over the no tax on social security payments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are countless blogs on it and it’s very easily searchable. You just chose to assume rather than make yourself informed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are countless blogs on it and it’s very easily searchable. You just chose to assume rather than make yourself informed.

I don't think that is fair. I'm genX and have heard basically my whole adult life that I can't count on social security.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry OP, within a few more months nobody will be there to run the computers, so the "scam" will be over.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/25/social-security-phones-doge-cuts/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s not so much that it was poorly managed but the actuarial tables have really changed like crazy. If you’ve seen mortality tables before and after people gave up smoking, it is insane how big a difference that one social change made. Of course now that we are all apparently walking around with a spoonful of plastic on our brains, and more in our blood streams, the actuarial mortality tables might switch back. But the Boomers hit the sweet spot in that most of them did not smoke and grew up before plastics and PfAS were in everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are countless blogs on it and it’s very easily searchable. You just chose to assume rather than make yourself informed.

I don't think that is fair. I'm genX and have heard basically my whole adult life that I can't count on social security.

Maybe you heard that out of context? I’m also GenX. When I was in my early 30s and working with CFP, they planned my portfolio and retirement but didnt factor in SS because it was slightly in question at the time. Also, we planned using conservative numbers to ensure a higher probability of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get a mailer from SS with your projected benefits every couple of years?

[Anonymous]

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

Spousal is 50% of the other spouse's full retirement benefit. If the spouse takes SS after full retirement age the spousal is still 50% of the full retirement age benefit. These are really not fair: 1. To get spousal benefit you do not have to work 40 quarters. 2. It's like medicare part A hospitalization - free for non contributing or partial [less than 40 quarter people]. No income based medicare premium even for those who pay IRMA.

So when both alive you take spousal if you worked 40 quarters, it's more than your own benefit, and both are receiving SS. Both of age to receive SS? A surviving spouse can get 100% of the deceased spouse's monthly benefit at time of death. You worked 40 quarters and have your own benefit. It's gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s not so much that it was poorly managed but the actuarial tables have really changed like crazy. If you’ve seen mortality tables before and after people gave up smoking, it is insane how big a difference that one social change made. Of course now that we are all apparently walking around with a spoonful of plastic on our brains, and more in our blood streams, the actuarial mortality tables might switch back. But the Boomers hit the sweet spot in that most of them did not smoke and grew up before plastics and PfAS were in everything.

Smoking did increase mortality. But obesity and other issues have hurt life expectancy.
The bigger issues with Social Security solvency, according to its actuaries and trustees, are a lower than expected birth rate (fewer people paying into the system) and income inequality (more earnings than forecast are above the cap on FICA contributions).

The "poorly managed" thing is a myth. The trust fund goes into government bonds and gets paid back with interest. There's not really a better option. https://www.aarp.org/social-security/myths-misconceptions-explained/ explains it at #5, along with a lot of other useful information about Social Security.

As someone who knows a lot about Social Security, it's disheartening to see how many people here don't really seem to understand it AND think they've figured out all the problems and solutions. The information is out there for people who want to learn more, and it's also possible to hire advisors who can help people make good decisions. If OP's mom had done a bit of research (literally reading a 2-page fact sheet that is provided with the Social Security Statement https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/assets/materials/workers-70andup.pdf) or paid a planner, applied for benefits at 70 when there was no advantage to waiting, and invested it very simply (an index fund for the Dow or S&P 500) she'd probably have a million dollars more over her lifetime than she will now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s not so much that it was poorly managed but the actuarial tables have really changed like crazy. If you’ve seen mortality tables before and after people gave up smoking, it is insane how big a difference that one social change made. Of course now that we are all apparently walking around with a spoonful of plastic on our brains, and more in our blood streams, the actuarial mortality tables might switch back. But the Boomers hit the sweet spot in that most of them did not smoke and grew up before plastics and PfAS were in everything.

Lol so we should allow you draw more if you are unhealthy and commit to dying early

[Anonymous]

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

And this is why I will collect as soon as I'm old enough. You don't know what will happen to your health.

[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?

SS is for people like my poor relatives in mostly Southern states. They never had jobs that provided 401k or matching. Most probably couldn't even tell you what an IRA is. Their retirement plan IS social security. That's all they have.

That's why I keep saying, if Musk or Trump touch SS, their voting base will flip on them and probably even become violent. I know my one aunt & uncle live off their combined $1500/month they get. It's mostly his because she was a SAHM who only worked part time some years.

[Anonymous]

Simply removing the income cap would fix social security.