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

[Anonymous]

If she got based on her contributions, she'd get less. If she wants to do that, she can write a check back at the end of every year to the US Treasury for the difference.

I'd personally be fine with ending spousal benefits altogether as a policy, but as long as the law is what it is, why be mad that she can get more than she would based on her own earnings?

[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 It’s outdated and punishes those who play by the rules.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.

This is a single payer benefit, not a joint benefit. Survivors are lucky to get the greater of the two rather than just their own.

[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?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

[Anonymous]

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?

The way you phrase this we really can only come to the same conclusion you do right? But yes, that is because your question is leading...

[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?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

I am pretty sure my mom won't get more than she put in considering she's almost 80.

[Anonymous]

NP here. Glad I found this thread. Learned something new to today.

So SS is like insurance not a pension or savings system. So if you live long, you benefit the most. But if you die young, you don’t get a penny. Makes sense!

[Anonymous]

It's too late to help OP's parents, but for others who read this:

Working before full retirement age (which gradually increased from 65 to 67) while recieving Social Security can lead to a temporary reduction in benefits (the Retirement Earnings Test) but higher benefits after full retirement age.

Working after full retirement age has no effect on Social Security benefits, but it can affect what portion of the Social Security benefits are subject to tax (as can other types of income).

Each month of delaying claiming between age 62 and 70 leads to a higher monthly benefit for the rest of someone's life.

After age 70, there is no benefit to delaying claiming. Nobody should wait past 70 to claim Social Security.

What OP's parents did is rare. Only a fraction of one percent of people insured for Social Security fail to claim it by age 70, and most are not high earners (they often have public pensions and didn't realize they also were insured for a bit of SS). But there's nothing to be done about it now--they are out probably a 6-figure sum. This is a good lesson for others in the importance of doing research. SSA's website has some good information.

[Anonymous]

My mom worked as well and died at age 64. She was waiting to “collect” but when she found out she was dying took at age 63. It sucked.

This is the main reason I will collect at 62.

[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?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

I'm with op. This system sounds terrible for those who are not poor. Another incentive to be poor which seems to be a common theme with government one size fits all mandatory programs

[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.

yes...she's one person...she gets one person's worth of benefit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's too late to help OP's parents, but for others who read this:

Working before full retirement age (which gradually increased from 65 to 67) while recieving Social Security can lead to a temporary reduction in benefits (the Retirement Earnings Test) but higher benefits after full retirement age.

Working after full retirement age has no effect on Social Security benefits, but it can affect what portion of the Social Security benefits are subject to tax (as can other types of income).

Each month of delaying claiming between age 62 and 70 leads to a higher monthly benefit for the rest of someone's life.

After age 70, there is no benefit to delaying claiming. Nobody should wait past 70 to claim Social Security.

What OP's parents did is rare. Only a fraction of one percent of people insured for Social Security fail to claim it by age 70, and most are not high earners (they often have public pensions and didn't realize they also were insured for a bit of SS). But there's nothing to be done about it now--they are out probably a 6-figure sum. This is a good lesson for others in the importance of doing research. SSA's website has some good information.

So then taking that logic ss should give back pay to ops mom.

[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?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

I am pretty sure my mom won't get more than she put in considering she's almost 80.

And she's just now figuring this out? This is definitely on her and your dad.

[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?

There is no hope for you. This is a you problem.

Your mother is getting more than she put into the system. SS rules are generous and allow your mother to collect MORE than she paid into the system because they top off the amount so it is = to what your dad would have received. Don’t blame the system because you and/or your mother didn’t take 60 minutes to understand the program. I truly don’t know anyone else who is confused by this concept.

I am pretty sure my mom won't get more than she put in considering she's almost 80.

It is bonkers that she didn't claim at 70. Did she just not understand the rules? If she missed out on $2000 a month for the past 9 years (it wouldn't be that simple because of COLAs, but this makes the math easier) that's $216,000. It's really unfortunate that nobody figured this out earlier. Does she not have a financial planner? What has she been living on all these years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's too late to help OP's parents, but for others who read this:

Working before full retirement age (which gradually increased from 65 to 67) while recieving Social Security can lead to a temporary reduction in benefits (the Retirement Earnings Test) but higher benefits after full retirement age.

Working after full retirement age has no effect on Social Security benefits, but it can affect what portion of the Social Security benefits are subject to tax (as can other types of income).

Each month of delaying claiming between age 62 and 70 leads to a higher monthly benefit for the rest of someone's life.

After age 70, there is no benefit to delaying claiming. Nobody should wait past 70 to claim Social Security.

What OP's parents did is rare. Only a fraction of one percent of people insured for Social Security fail to claim it by age 70, and most are not high earners (they often have public pensions and didn't realize they also were insured for a bit of SS). But there's nothing to be done about it now--they are out probably a 6-figure sum. This is a good lesson for others in the importance of doing research. SSA's website has some good information.

So then taking that logic ss should give back pay to ops mom.

Are you Basement Bro who just likes to antagonize? This is getting ridiculous.

As they say: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because your parents were ignorant of how it works doesn't mean SS has to make up for their ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's too late to help OP's parents, but for others who read this:

Working before full retirement age (which gradually increased from 65 to 67) while recieving Social Security can lead to a temporary reduction in benefits (the Retirement Earnings Test) but higher benefits after full retirement age.

Working after full retirement age has no effect on Social Security benefits, but it can affect what portion of the Social Security benefits are subject to tax (as can other types of income).

Each month of delaying claiming between age 62 and 70 leads to a higher monthly benefit for the rest of someone's life.

After age 70, there is no benefit to delaying claiming. Nobody should wait past 70 to claim Social Security.

What OP's parents did is rare. Only a fraction of one percent of people insured for Social Security fail to claim it by age 70, and most are not high earners (they often have public pensions and didn't realize they also were insured for a bit of SS). But there's nothing to be done about it now--they are out probably a 6-figure sum. This is a good lesson for others in the importance of doing research. SSA's website has some good information.

So then taking that logic ss should give back pay to ops mom.

Nope, SSA at most gives 6 months of back retirement pay. It's people's responsibility to decide when to claim. If a tree falls on my car and I don't tell my insurer, GEICO doesn't track me down to offer me money.