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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

It's not a 401k so just stop saying that. A 401k is for yourself and SS is basically taxes, it's a safety net for society.

Also private insurance like health insurance or car, homeowners insurance etc is like that. You may pay and pay and if you don't have major needs or life events, you may not actually need to make big claims. And yes the money (premiums) is "gone" - that is how pooled risk works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

So working longer and contributing more is now a mistake? That’s backwards. My mom did everything right — kept working, paid in, and delayed benefits like the system encourages. Now she’s penalized by only getting one benefit?

And blaming my dad for dying before collecting is just cold. The issue isn’t misunderstanding the rules — it’s that the rules punish people who do the responsible thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

She could have stopped working. She could have started taking benefits earlier. Your dad could have taken benefits earlier. That none of them bothered to learn how the system works is not SSI's fault. That's their fault.

So working longer and contributing more is now a mistake? That’s backwards. My mom did everything right — kept working, paid in, and delayed benefits like the system encourages. Now she’s penalized by only getting one benefit?

And blaming my dad for dying before collecting is just cold. The issue isn’t misunderstanding the rules — it’s that the rules punish people who do the responsible thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think she shouldn’t even get the his/her option and she should only get hers.

You father should’ve started collecting at 62.

He worked until death

It’s not a Fed pension. You can collect social security AND work. MANY people work while on SS.

OP is clearly a foreign agent to not know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think she shouldn’t even get the his/her option and she should only get hers.

You father should’ve started collecting at 62.

He worked until death

That was his choice. It’s a risk many people take and come out on the short end.

It's unfortunate that rather than taking her decided to keep working and contributing and got penalized for working hard

Deeper and deeper into the cups.

It's insurance. Sort of like taking out auto insurance. If you never get in an accident, you will just have paid in for years and years and never see a cent of the money back.

SSI was set up when most people died as soon as they retired. It was never intended to last for decades. But we continue to honor until death. Your dad chose to not take it. Your mother is fortunate to get hers plus some of his.

If Social Security is truly meant to be insurance, then survivor benefits should work like life insurance — not cancel out the spouse’s own benefit. My dad paid in for decades and died before collecting a cent. My mom kept working and paying in, but now only gets one benefit. That’s not insurance — that’s forfeiture.

With real life insurance, the policy pays out in addition to what the surviving spouse has. But Social Security wipes out one benefit completely. And while it was built when people died around 65, the system hasn’t adapted to modern life expectancy. It’s outdated and punishes those who play by the rules.

It's a federal plan that is set up to pay out individually, not as a joint venture. As was also stated upthread, it was set up so that women could stay home and have kids and have a pay out after husband stopped working and died. Generally very soon after retiring.

Your rage is really distasteful. Your mom is getting more than she technically should get. IT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. And in the near future, it is highly probably ALL benefits will be reduced because given how much more the system pays out compared to how much it takes in, it is going bankrupt. No chance in hades that you're going to create some movement to create change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

She could have stopped working. She could have started taking benefits earlier. Your dad could have taken benefits earlier. That none of them bothered to learn how the system works is not SSI's fault. That's their fault.

So working longer and contributing more is now a mistake? That’s backwards. My mom did everything right — kept working, paid in, and delayed benefits like the system encourages. Now she’s penalized by only getting one benefit?

And blaming my dad for dying before collecting is just cold. The issue isn’t misunderstanding the rules — it’s that the rules punish people who do the responsible thing.[/quote]

Not learning how the system works is not responsible. They were mindlessly working and not understanding the system, then afterwards their daughter is raging. Rage at them for not figuring these things out.

[Anonymous]

We get so used to the name we forget whst it means.

Social. Security

It's security for members of society to help them survive in old age.

The system wasn't made for your wealthy parents but they still get something and in your mom's case more than she earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Under what reasonably fair world would your mom get both? That’s not the point of SS.

If she is a survivor benefit than she should get both with that logic no one married should put into it after the spouse is dead and they have survivor benefits

Are you drunk? This makes no sense.

If my mom can’t collect her own Social Security because she’s getting survivor benefits, then why was she forced to keep paying in after my dad died? She kept working and contributing for years, even though she’d never be allowed to use that benefit. That’s the problem.

No other system works like this — with a 401(k) or private insurance, what you put in doesn’t just vanish. Social Security wipes out one benefit and keeps the rest. How is that fair?

She could have stopped working. She could have started taking benefits earlier. Your dad could have taken benefits earlier. That none of them bothered to learn how the system works is not SSI's fault. That's their fault.

So working longer and contributing more is now a mistake? That’s backwards. My mom did everything right — kept working, paid in, and delayed benefits like the system encourages. Now she’s penalized by only getting one benefit?

And blaming my dad for dying before collecting is just cold. The issue isn’t misunderstanding the rules — it’s that the rules punish people who do the responsible thing.

You’re screaming into the wind…your mom is getting more than she should.

Move to another country if you don’t like it.

[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

More than a few widowed and dependents thought the same. It’s ok OP. Mom will get more than her salary paid in. Now that SS is a hot topic, hopefully people will pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We get so used to the name we forget whst it means.

Social. Security

It's security for members of society to help them survive in old age.

The system wasn't made for your wealthy parents but they still get something and in your mom's case more than she earned.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your mother should have applied for your dad’s SS as soon as he passed away. She missed out on over 15 years of benefits because she didn’t research her benefits. The system isn’t broken.

This. So dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think she shouldn’t even get the his/her option and she should only get hers.

You father should’ve started collecting at 62.

He worked until death

That was his choice. It’s a risk many people take and come out on the short end.

It's unfortunate that rather than taking her decided to keep working and contributing and got penalized for working hard

Deeper and deeper into the cups.

It's insurance. Sort of like taking out auto insurance. If you never get in an accident, you will just have paid in for years and years and never see a cent of the money back.

SSI was set up when most people died as soon as they retired. It was never intended to last for decades. But we continue to honor until death. Your dad chose to not take it. Your mother is fortunate to get hers plus some of his.

If Social Security is truly meant to be insurance, then survivor benefits should work like life insurance — not cancel out the spouse’s own benefit. My dad paid in for decades and died before collecting a cent. My mom kept working and paying in, but now only gets one benefit. That’s not insurance — that’s forfeiture.

With real life insurance, the policy pays out in addition to what the surviving spouse has. But Social Security wipes out one benefit completely. And while it was built when people died around 65, the system hasn’t adapted to modern life expectancy. It’s outdated and punishes those who play by the rules.

It's a federal plan that is set up to pay out individually, not as a joint venture. As was also stated upthread, it was set up so that women could stay home and have kids and have a pay out after husband stopped working and died. Generally very soon after retiring.

Your rage is really distasteful. Your mom is getting more than she technically should get. IT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. And in the near future, it is highly probably ALL benefits will be reduced because given how much more the system pays out compared to how much it takes in, it is going bankrupt. No chance in hades that you're going to create some movement to create change.

So my mom working hard, paying in her whole life — even after my dad passed — and expecting to get what she contributed is now called “rage” and “distasteful”? That’s ridiculous.

She’s not getting “more than she should.” She’s getting one benefit after two people paid in for decades. If the system was built when women didn’t work and people died at 65, then it clearly needs updating.

The real issue is we force everyone into this system but don’t guarantee a fair return. Maybe it’s time to offer multiple options or make it optional. I bet a lot of people would opt out if they actually understood how it works. I know I would after seeing what happened to my parents.

[Anonymous]

We get that you don’t like the system. But here’s the thing. At age 70, both of your parents could have collected
Max SS without having to pay anything back. Before that, they could have collected at lower Amounts but would have had to pay some back if they earned money while collecting. So your father missed out on significant sums by not applying at age 70 as did your mom. Between this and all of your posts it is clear that your Family has a lack of understanding of SS.

And to answer your question as to why you get SS statements, it’s so that you
Can verify the accuracy of their records.

[Anonymous]

Social security is insurance and the last thing any insirance company wants to do is pay. No matter the premium. It's why people are encouraged to collect in their 70s on the hope you will die before getting all your money

I sorta understand what you are saying but you also are naive and have lived under a rock for decades if you didn't realize this is how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frankly think she shouldn’t even get the his/her option and she should only get hers.

You father should’ve started collecting at 62.

He worked until death

That was his choice. It’s a risk many people take and come out on the short end.

It's unfortunate that rather than taking her decided to keep working and contributing and got penalized for working hard

Deeper and deeper into the cups.

It's insurance. Sort of like taking out auto insurance. If you never get in an accident, you will just have paid in for years and years and never see a cent of the money back.

SSI was set up when most people died as soon as they retired. It was never intended to last for decades. But we continue to honor until death. Your dad chose to not take it. Your mother is fortunate to get hers plus some of his.

If Social Security is truly meant to be insurance, then survivor benefits should work like life insurance — not cancel out the spouse’s own benefit. My dad paid in for decades and died before collecting a cent. My mom kept working and paying in, but now only gets one benefit. That’s not insurance — that’s forfeiture.

With real life insurance, the policy pays out in addition to what the surviving spouse has. But Social Security wipes out one benefit completely. And while it was built when people died around 65, the system hasn’t adapted to modern life expectancy. It’s outdated and punishes those who play by the rules.

It's a federal plan that is set up to pay out individually, not as a joint venture. As was also stated upthread, it was set up so that women could stay home and have kids and have a pay out after husband stopped working and died. Generally very soon after retiring.

Your rage is really distasteful. Your mom is getting more than she technically should get. IT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. And in the near future, it is highly probably ALL benefits will be reduced because given how much more the system pays out compared to how much it takes in, it is going bankrupt. No chance in hades that you're going to create some movement to create change.

So my mom working hard, paying in her whole life — even after my dad passed — and expecting to get what she contributed is now called “rage” and “distasteful”? That’s ridiculous.

She’s not getting “more than she should.” She’s getting one benefit after two people paid in for decades. If the system was built when women didn’t work and people died at 65, then it clearly needs updating.

The real issue is we force everyone into this system but don’t guarantee a fair return. Maybe it’s time to offer multiple options or make it optional. I bet a lot of people would opt out if they actually understood how it works. I know I would after seeing what happened to my parents.

Lady, the hard truth is that your parents made some dumb mistakes. We're not changing the system because you are being a snowflake and your parents were ignorant. Grow up.