Social Securoty Benefits: Do people deserve to collect?

I would also point out that a widow is now a single parent. If her children are still young and not school age, she has to provide for the expense of day care etc while she pursues that education or gets that job. Window's benefits provide the ability to do that. Without that, many windowed mothers would not be able to afford the cost of things like daycare for their children while they worked towards becoming self-sufficient. I would rather provide for a widow so they could get their feet under them as giving them enough time via widow benefits is much cheaper int he long run than providing for them and their children over the long term because they are unable to afford the daycare or other necessities to better themselves and their situation. In the long run a woman given the helping hand to pursue higher education and a full time job will pay for itself once the woman becomes self sufficient.

so what exactly is a woman to do who is 60 years old and has never worked a day in the workforce in her life (raising family etc...) supposed to do about getting a job. The likely hood of getting a job at that point in her life is about nil to non existent.

Sorry, part of the contribution rates take the fact that part of the benefits are for widows.

My mother lost her husband to the Vietnam War. She had three kids and she was dependent on him as a provider.

He volunteered to go. He stood up when people like Mitt Romney were hiding in France. He had three tours. He was shot through the leg on the first tour. On the third tour, he was gut shot, blown up by a grenade and stabbed through the lungs with a bayonet. He contracted malaria in the hospital. He came home and a few days later went into cardiac arrest and died in the living room.

Tell me again why she and all the other wives of dead soldiers don't deserve widow's benefits.

Well, as much as I can see the point of able-bodied women getting jobs and not needing their deceased spouse's benefits, those men paid into the system. If she doesn't get it, the government does.

That just doesn't seem right on any level, to me.

While I have and will continue to rail against generations of folks living "on the dole", I think this is a separate matter and should be considered on a case by case basis. If the need is there (as in the case of a widowed mother with young children) I have no problem with her collecting SS benefits earned by the deceased spouse. I also believe it should apply in the reverse situation (for a widower with kids) and that there should be some reasonable restrictions and limitations on the collection of those benefits (as in reducing and or eliminating them as those children become adults) but there's no way I'll go with a blanket denial of benefits earned through hard work exactly when they're needed.

From what the SSA says, it is the same for men and women. Women can get the benefits as a widow just like men can get benefits as a widower.

From what the SSA says, it is the same for men and women. Women can get the benefits as a widow just like men can get benefits as a widower.

That only applies IF the benefits are greater than what an applicant would get based upon their own contribution history. For example, if Jack and Jill both worked for a water company on a hill fetching pails of water, and both had equal pay for equal work, then if Jack falls down and breaks his crown, Jack's widow benefits would not be any more than Jill's own and she would merely collect her own. There wouldn't be any widow benefit.

Another caveat is if Jack took Social Security benefits early at age 62, then Jill's widow benefits would be reduced accordingly because Jack's benefits were reduced. If she collects, then she may be throwing money away because her own benefits will not kick in at age 68. She would be nailed with the same penalty that befell Jack for taking benefits too early.

It's a nasty trap played upon people by a heartless bureaucracy all the time.

Jack and Jill are age 62. Jack decides to collect benefits early. Unfortunately, Jack falls down...

Jill, having lost Jack's income decides to apply for widow benefits, and gets them. She believes (wrongly) that she can collect Jack's benefits and then when she's 68 years old, she can do a switcheroo and collect her own higher benefits.

Not so fast. Social Security looks at Jill as having started collecting benefits at age 62 and she's LOCKED IN PLACE. She can't claim full retirement. Ever. And Jill goes tumbling after.

My point was that the rules do not differ based on sex as had been claimed.

This is a pointless post! No matter how you feel about it, He was her husband, He is dead, She is entitled to the money! Her husband put it in now it is hers! It is funny that we can complain when those of us in the middle, get even a little more than we would normally have, But the rich are allowed to obtain vast amounts of wealth, some of it through some shady means but this is OK? Do me a favor stfu!!!!!

Arieus...i find your article somewhat prejudicial, and lacking of empathy.

You ignore that a married couple BOTH contribute to SS (it's been US law since 1930s). They are a TEAM; the survivor should, obviously, be entitled to the highest benefit, since they BOTH contributed to SS.

I would be more in favor of eliminating the SS benefits of those whose other sources of retirement income are greater than their SS benefits. Many of these widows/widowers rely on these benefits as their primary source of income.

Nope. They paid in, they deserve to collect...regardless. They weren't given the choice to pay in or not so they deserve to get what they were forced to contribute to.

Notice the wording I would be more in favor, as in if there were no other option. Are you arguing that those who truly need the benefits should be given less priority because they didn't personally pay into the fund? I've personally paid quite a bit into SS and would have no problems with giving my share to a widow/widower who had no other income source.

Thinknaboutit

This is too much like a truly compassionate American and human being. For some here this type of thinking is alien. Why take care of people in need when it is so much easier to chastise them!!!!

I will go as far as to say that single women who collect social security should be adjusted to compensate for the disparity in womens pay versus men!

What I'm reading here in some cases is vile. Why are some humans just plain spiteful and mean?

One more reason why humans are #1 on the "real" endangered species list.

I'm often embarrassed to be human by what I see, read and hear. This is one of those times.

Aye Coral, I've often said humans are the most destructive force on the planet.

To me it sounds like someone passing judgement on the elderly. Because they get something and other people don't it should be stopped. I could almost bet that Arieus also supports the WSO in wanting their college loans paid off for them.

The SS system is needed by around a third of those who get the benefits, but it has basically turned us all into a nation of self-justified welfare collectors. The benefit should be based on need instead of greed for any recipients, including widows, widowers, everyone who is eligible. The nation simply can't afford the giveaway any more.

Paying into the system your entire life and you consider it greedy to expect to get something back?

The money we paid in either went to the recipients-du-jour, or paid for the programs we collectively wanted. It would be swell if a blank check could be given to everyone who for whatever reason qualifies, but the nation can't afford to do so, and will collapse if it's not rolled back. That's simply the way it is...

SSI, became a program in 1974. The states had programs, Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Disabled, etc etc. So, SSI was established but the States still pay part of the benefits and they also set the amounts. That's the why the difference between Calif and KY. Now if the states would give up their part in SSI then they would expect the Feds to pay the difference. Not going to happen

Getting SS disability or SSI, certain medical criteria has to be met. If you don't then you don't get it, if you do meet the criteria then you do. It is not an easy, sign up and someone gets either one. Sometimes it is years before someone gets a benefit.

The whole system needs to be revised? and replaced with what? The system is tweaked now and then to make it better just as if someone would replace a battery in their car. They wouldn't buy a new car just because they needed a battery. geez

Arieus the difference in amount is because of the difference in the cost of living between Cal and KY

true Pat, plus here in the KY, they don't tax food, and they are a bit cheapskate too. :)

Arieus

I feel all people across the Us should be collecting at least 1400 to 1800 per mth to live on, but should not be allowed to work if they are collecting.

Have you ever attempted to live on $1400 - $1800 a month? As Pat from Montana and mstanley2265 says - not all states are created equal and the same goes for the cost of living in each state. It may sound like a lot to some, but sometimes, it is not that simple. If you don't have to pay mortgage or rent, it might be possible, but if you do, and add all of the additional expenses you incur ( insurances, home ownership and all of the expenses that come with it, health insurance, food, clothing, travel expenses, etc.), you have no choice but to have another source of income in addition to collecting that $1400-$1800.

The states and local Governments are the problem. They are corrupt and inefficient and escape the due diligence that OUR Federal Government is constantly under.

Get a new pair of glasses Americans .... and take a closer look at what's going on in your local Government and your state Government. Pure unadulterated corruption that makes the Federal Government look heavenly by comparison!

This nation has collective tunnelvision and is farsighted when it comes to taxes!

When I put my glasses on, Coral, I see a nation full of people who want just about every government program conceivable, and then whine like spoiled kids if told we can't afford it, or they should pay for it all. Blaming that government, or illegal aliens or fill-in-the-blank, may comfort people, but it's only a diversion from the one in the mirror. Few if any care about the future for the kids; the biggest cares are I, me, mine, and next weekend. It's called "denial".