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

[Anonymous]

Why did your father not collect his rightful earnings?

[Anonymous]

You are not reclaiming the money you put in (many people would lose if that was the equation). It is not a savings account. It is to stave off poverty in old age. Not meant to be the only income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are a lot of rules pertaining to social security and some of them appear to be questionable. Maybe it's due to ignorance, who knows?

Posters ranting about how we "don't want people dying in the stree" or "she gets the money because he couldn't have done it without her" are political noise and don't help anyone understand spousal benefits. Even calling it insurance or any other name doesn't really help much either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are a lot of rules pertaining to social security and some of them appear to be questionable. Maybe it's due to ignorance, who knows?

Posters ranting about how we "don't want people dying in the stree" or "she gets the money because he couldn't have done it without her" are political noise and don't help anyone understand spousal benefits. Even calling it insurance or any other name doesn't really help much either.

There is very detailed help early on in the thread. As with many threads, it devolves into a just a lot of noise.

[Anonymous]

You know what else isn't fair?

Men who have "late in life" babies, say after the age of 60, and start collecting SS at age 62 or 65 or 67...

get an extra children's benefit for their kids until the kids turn 18 or graduate college. it's up to 50% of the parent's amount!

Just for having kids later in life.

[Anonymous]

Why is OP so clueless?

This is called being an adult.

None of this is hidden


Your parents screwed up. Most of us as we aged stayed informed. Your parents were sent earning statements for years and chose to ignore them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what else isn't fair?

Men who have "late in life" babies, say after the age of 60, and start collecting SS at age 62 or 65 or 67...

get an extra children's benefit for their kids until the kids turn 18 or graduate college. it's up to 50% of the parent's amount!

Just for having kids later in life.

Good point! But it's the kid who would suffer otherwise, so I do agree with providing benefits. The kid didn't ask to be born to one parent who already had one foot in the grave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are a lot of rules pertaining to social security and some of them appear to be questionable. Maybe it's due to ignorance, who knows?

Posters ranting about how we "don't want people dying in the stree" or "she gets the money because he couldn't have done it without her" are political noise and don't help anyone understand spousal benefits. Even calling it insurance or any other name doesn't really help much either.

And there it is "just asking questions", right on schedule!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are a lot of rules pertaining to social security and some of them appear to be questionable. Maybe it's due to ignorance, who knows?

Posters ranting about how we "don't want people dying in the stree" or "she gets the money because he couldn't have done it without her" are political noise and don't help anyone understand spousal benefits. Even calling it insurance or any other name doesn't really help much either.

Calling it what it is doesn’t help much? Doesn’t help what or whom? WTF does that even mean.

It’s *literally* the Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are a lot of rules pertaining to social security and some of them appear to be questionable. Maybe it's due to ignorance, who knows?

Posters ranting about how we "don't want people dying in the stree" or "she gets the money because he couldn't have done it without her" are political noise and don't help anyone understand spousal benefits. Even calling it insurance or any other name doesn't really help much either.

Calling it what it is doesn’t help much? Doesn’t help what or whom? WTF does that even mean.

It’s *literally* the Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program.

Why are you so sassy? You talk to people like that in real life?

I'm not sure why you take issue with someone pointing out that calling something a name isn't the same as explaining something. I thought there would actually be knowledgeable people posting in money & finance. Like people working in financial regulatory agencies, PE, IB, or possibly economists.