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

[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?

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.

Honestly, trump voters are morons who believe propaganda with no ability for critical thinking. He will tell them its Biden's fault and they will just nod along like brainwashed cult members.

[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.

Just because you’ve heard it doesn’t make it true. At least, it doesn’t have to be true.

Everyone should ask themselves: at what point during the year do you stop paying your ss contributions? If you make under $176,100 you never stop. Easy. If you make, say, $200,000 you stop paying in maybe November and so on.

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and these billionaires? They stop paying one second after midnight on January 1. There’s no reason they can’t pay more to ensure our elderly aren’t tossed out into the streets. And of course they don’t want their businesses to pay on behalf of their employees because god forbid they pay back to this country that allowed them to prosper. Notice that Elon Musk didn’t move to, you know, Angola or Romania to get rich. He moved somewhere that had the infrastructure to allow it but doesn’t want to give back to let it continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because you’ve heard it doesn’t make it true. At least, it doesn’t have to be true.

Everyone should ask themselves: at what point during the year do you stop paying your ss contributions? If you make under $176,100 you never stop. Easy. If you make, say, $200,000 you stop paying in maybe November and so on.

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and these billionaires? They stop paying one second after midnight on January 1. There’s no reason they can’t pay more to ensure our elderly aren’t tossed out into the streets. And of course they don’t want their businesses to pay on behalf of their employees because god forbid they pay back to this country that allowed them to prosper. Notice that Elon Musk didn’t move to, you know, Angola or Romania to get rich. He moved somewhere that had the infrastructure to allow it but doesn’t want to give back to let it continue.

I was responding to the bolded. You seem to have a good understanding of how paying into social security works. So do I. Good for both of us. That's a different topic than the criticism of people who have consistently heard it won't be around and thus haven't bothered to figure out how they are supposed to benefit from it. Looking back I'd say all of "social security won't be around for you" that I heard was an early form of disinformation. I heard it consistently, from older (and as it turns out, conservative) adults from many parts of my life. So, not a lot of reason to figure out what benefits it might have provided. Obviously having learned about it I now know that social security should be around and I fully expect it will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simply removing the income cap would fix social security.

It would have if it had been implemented earlier. At this point, even if the additional contributions didn't qualify the workers for higher payments (thus breaking the connection between FICA contributions and the benefit calculation) it would only close 73% of the shortfall https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run106.html

People who want to play around with various combinations of changes that would restore solvency might enjoy https://www.actuary.org/socialsecurity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Balancing the risk that you die young (in which case claiming early makes sense) against the risk that you live a long time (in which case it makes sense to delay claiming) is a tricky thing. Your own health (using your ancestors as a guidepost is helpful but not definitive) matters a lot. For people who are married and/or have young or disabled kids who can get benefits on your record, the calculation is even more complex. And it's always going to be made with imperfect information. It also involves things that can't be quantified--some people get peace of mind knowing that they are getting benefits ASAP even if they're lower, and some people get peace of mind from knowing they are going to get the highest possible benefit.

[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?

Well 80% of the people who voted for the orange thing apparently did not know that 99% of his policies would actually harm them. So yeah, not hard to believe that most people don't understand these simple things

[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 are on the internet, so it would be very easy to avoid "propoganda" and do your own research in 5 mins if you cared to be informed

[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?

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.

Even that one has been publicized. You do read about people who literally do NOT remarry simply because of this benefit (if the EX was a High earner and the new spouse is not). Getting remarried takes away that benefit

[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.

You are on the internet, so it would be very easy to avoid "propoganda" and do your own research in 5 mins if you cared to be informed

She's playing dumb. Its tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Honestly, trump voters are morons who believe propaganda with no ability for critical thinking. He will tell them its Biden's fault and they will just nod along like brainwashed cult members.

You're wrong. They're not morons, they're just not as educated as you. Also, some of his voters are true believers and some just vote that way because everyone they know does. But if that Social Security stops flowing (whether SSI or SSDI) they will change their minds quickly and they are not weak nor are they idiots.

[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.

I personally assume we won't see much, and calculate at most 50%. But that doesn't mean I dont' spend 30 mins educating myself on what I'd get if it's 100% when I retire. Not difficult to be informed if you care one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 or what will happened to SS with the gov't F'ing around with it. IMO almost always better to take what you can when you can. But then again, I also have saved for retirement and SS is just a supplement and not "necessary". But I'd prefer to get back some of what we have paid into it before we die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simply removing the income cap would fix social security.

Bezos won't collect anymore than someone making the income cap amount will. If they raise the cap, then they'd raise the amount paid out, so it woudlnt' fix it at all. Also, those at/above the cap are statistically more likely to live longer than those who made $30K yearly their entire lives. So it woudlnt' help the solvency issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Honestly, trump voters are morons who believe propaganda with no ability for critical thinking. He will tell them its Biden's fault and they will just nod along like brainwashed cult members.

You're wrong. They're not morons, they're just not as educated as you. Also, some of his voters are true believers and some just vote that way because everyone they know does. But if that Social Security stops flowing (whether SSI or SSDI) they will change their minds quickly and they are not weak nor are they idiots.

well they have chosen to not be as educated as others. Everyone is offered a free K-12 learning and CC is very affordable, and so is then 2 years at StateU if you want to learn.
Also with the internet, anyone can educate themselves very easily, they just have to want to do that.
So yes, I'd argue if you choose to believe propaganda and not search for the truth/facts for yourself, that is on you. It's a choice

[Anonymous]

Social Security operates more like an annuity that pays out while you are alive, with survivor benefits in certain circumstances to spouses or minor children. It is what it is--but it is up to your mom and everyone to know what you are entitled to and save enough for needs beyond what social security will provide.

I sympathize though because my mom divorced when I was young and never remarried. This apparently entitles her to a portion of my deceased father's social security, which she never claimed. She's now 84 and living on a limited income and I'm trying to help her claim those benefits at least for whatever years she has left.

I'm absolutely furious with the current interference with social security and the impact that has on elderly people who will struggle to jump through all the hoops being put in place. Honestly it will mean I have to spend a ton of time and lost work to deal with it because my mom can't drive or figure it out herself.

My husband and I have made sure we have accounts and have checked our current projected benefits on SSA.gov. We have ample retirement savings as well. We also unfortunately have relatives with zero saved for retirement...social security may be all they have. I'm not sure what republicans think we should do - just let people starve and die? Or expect people who have worked their whole lives paying into a system to just walk away?