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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been a SAHM most of my life. The money I put for several years in social security I can never claim. Instead, I will get an amount from my DH social security which is much higher than what I made.

This is what I don't get about the system. Why does a spouse get money related to the person they are married to? Why should this person get anything other than what they put in? Why wouldn't the spouse just get money related to himself? Why does the spouse get 1.5 times what someone would get if both people were working?

You are preaching to the choir. I took a retirement class with several coworkers and when they talked about the spouse benefit, everyone was bewildered. Maybe there is an aspect of the policy that makes sense, but general consensus was that it sounds scammy.

I honestly don't think this is a good place to discuss this topic because most people here are married and hard core to the left. Not trying to get into politics, but it will just end up with someone trying to win the argument as opposed to discussing public policy.

[Anonymous]

The spouse benefit exists because when SS started so many spouses were housewives who did not work. That was the default norm of America in the 1930s through the 1970s, that mom wouldn't be working. It made perfect sense for her to be entitled to keep her husband's SS after he passed away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security is a bad return on investment for some and a good return on investment for others. No one knows which group they are in until the end.

Exactly. Like many things in this life, there are makers and takers.

My BIL died at age 50. Worked full time well paid blue collar job since age 18.

My sister collected a whopping $250 for his death benefit.

When she retires in 15 or more years, she too will get to pick one.

[Anonymous]

What a bizarre thing to complain about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been a SAHM most of my life. The money I put for several years in social security I can never claim. Instead, I will get an amount from my DH social security which is much higher than what I made.

This is what I don't get about the system. Why does a spouse get money related to the person they are married to? Why should this person get anything other than what they put in? Why wouldn't the spouse just get money related to himself? Why does the spouse get 1.5 times what someone would get if both people were working?

You are preaching to the choir. I took a retirement class with several coworkers and when they talked about the spouse benefit, everyone was bewildered. Maybe there is an aspect of the policy that makes sense, but general consensus was that it sounds scammy.

I honestly don't think this is a good place to discuss this topic because most people here are married and hard core to the left. Not trying to get into politics, but it will just end up with someone trying to win the argument as opposed to discussing public policy.

It’s not a scam. It’s an insurance scheme. It has nothing to do with being left or right.

Some of you don’t seem to understand the concept of insurance.

[Anonymous]

I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

Thank you! This is just not that complicated. The money didn’t “disappear” — it went to other people in the country who are currently alive, and it would go to you too if you got disabled or lived to 99 or whatever. It is technically called “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.”

When your husband dies he also doesn’t get medical insurance anymore. And he doesn’t get paid back all the money he put into medical insurance. He doesn’t need it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

They always use this kind of language- "just asking questions" "doing my own research", but when you present the exact, specific, patently obvious reason, clearly documented, they will come back with something else, trust me.

Because they want two things- to get whatever they possibly can, and to step on the face of someone they think is less deserving while doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

Thank you! This is just not that complicated. The money didn’t “disappear” — it went to other people in the country who are currently alive, and it would go to you too if you got disabled or lived to 99 or whatever. It is technically called “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.”

When your husband dies he also doesn’t get medical insurance anymore. And he doesn’t get paid back all the money he put into medical insurance. He doesn’t need it anymore.

So its insurance for if you can't work or reach a certain age but everyone pays the same premium regardless of risk?

[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

Why on earth would you think that? Common knowledge you get the higher of the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

Thank you! This is just not that complicated. The money didn’t “disappear” — it went to other people in the country who are currently alive, and it would go to you too if you got disabled or lived to 99 or whatever. It is technically called “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.”

When your husband dies he also doesn’t get medical insurance anymore. And he doesn’t get paid back all the money he put into medical insurance. He doesn’t need it anymore.

So its insurance for if you can't work or reach a certain age but everyone pays the same premium regardless of risk?

Yes because it's so broad based that you don't have to worry about moral hazard. As usual, these types think they "got you", when in fact these issues were covered/handled almost a century ago, and revised over time by people who knew what they were doing. It's not perfect by any means, but it has fundamentally worked to achieve the goal of keeping old people out of destitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

This kind of makes sense from a perception perspective, but when you view SS as insurance it doesn't. If you have two health insurance policies, for example, you don't get to collect payment for the same doctor visit twice. They bill your primary insurance...and if it doesn't cover it 100% then they might bill your secondary insurance. Same thing here, and it's a benefit to the surviving spouse that they get to collect at a higher rate than their own payments would have enabled.

The problem is that we are not used to thinking of insurance as paying out for years. And there are things like pensions and 401Ks where the individual is paying into a fund for their future. So, people are just not conditioned to see SS as insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a real flaw in how Social Security handles benefits for dual-income households. If both spouses work and contribute to Social Security for decades, you’d expect that their combined efforts would support their retirement together. And for a while, that’s true — they each receive their own benefit.

But here’s the problem: When one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse only keeps the higher benefit. The other benefit — despite a lifetime of contributions — just disappears.

To me, that feels like a penalty for being a two-earner household. You essentially lose one full benefit, even though both spouses paid in. The system doesn’t reflect the reality of how people live — married couples operate as a financial unit, not as two isolated individuals.

I think this issue exists because the Social Security system was likely not originally designed with dual-income households in mind. It made more sense in an era when one spouse (usually the husband) worked and the other didn’t. But that’s not how modern families work.

Maybe it’s time for a change — perhaps Social Security should evaluate contributions at the household level, and survivor benefits should reflect that. Instead of just shifting to one person’s benefit, the system could calculate something more fair based on total marital contributions over time.

One person is dead. One person is alive. The one that's alive doesn't get to claim two payments. It's very simple.

Thank you! This is just not that complicated. The money didn’t “disappear” — it went to other people in the country who are currently alive, and it would go to you too if you got disabled or lived to 99 or whatever. It is technically called “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.”

When your husband dies he also doesn’t get medical insurance anymore. And he doesn’t get paid back all the money he put into medical insurance. He doesn’t need it anymore.

So its insurance for if you can't work or reach a certain age but everyone pays the same premium regardless of risk?

Yes because it's so broad based that you don't have to worry about moral hazard. As usual, these types think they "got you", when in fact these issues were covered/handled almost a century ago, and revised over time by people who knew what they were doing. It's not perfect by any means, but it has fundamentally worked to achieve the goal of keeping old people out of destitution.

One problem is that Americans no longer have a shared sense of responsibility to their community. So the average person (and I'd argue this is both ont he left and the right to some extent) just doesn't see keeping old people they don't know out of destitution as their responsibility. Part of this is because we view this in moral terms rather than see how bad it is for the country to have old people, disabled people, etc dying in poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social security is a bad return on investment for some and a good return on investment for others. No one knows which group they are in until the end.

Exactly. Like many things in this life, there are makers and takers.

My BIL died at age 50. Worked full time well paid blue collar job since age 18.

My sister collected a whopping $250 for his death benefit.

When she retires in 15 or more years, she too will get to pick one.

She should be entitled to a survivors benefits now.