Skip to main content
GailL1
GailL1
Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
February 9, 2025

THE MATH DOES NOT WORK

  • February 9, 2025
  • 3 replies
  • 1063 views

  

  Thru the years, benefits for Social Security have increased in coverage but there has not been enough income coming in to cover these increases in coverage.

 

EXAMPLE - Survivors benefits INCLUDING Divorced Widows -  

 

If a person marries and divorces say 3-times and each of these marriages and the current one meets the eligibility for Survivors benefits, in essence, there could be as many as (4) widowed spouses (including the divorced spouses) could be drawing Survivors benefits.  And these are NOT limited by any Family Maximum - each of these widows - divorced and current - receive 100% of the Survivors benefits - NOT a portion of it.

 

No wonder the Trust Fund is running out of money.  The math just does not work to me - but I’m all ears in receiving comments on this justification.  

      This topic has been closed for replies.

      3 replies

      B
      BalbonisMoleskine
      Conversationalist ⭐⭐
      February 9, 2025

      That's one more example of why SS benefits should be based entirely on a person's contributions rather than someone else's. 

      GailL1
      GailL1Author
      Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
      February 9, 2025

      @BalbonisMoleskine 

      It is fine with me with the way they handle the computation of the PIA but when it comes to dividing this amount out to everybody else then it seems to me there should be a limit - 

      Ira person dies that may have some kids less than 18-19 years old, they get some Survivorship benefits until 18/19 BUT it is limited by the Family Max.  but not so with Spouse and Divorce spouse Survivors.

       

      It is just like appealing the WE/GPO - it was put in place in 1980’s to save SS Trust Fund money - now they have repealed it - FINE but where did they make up the money to the Trust Funds - NOWHERE.

       

      Politicians seem to have a blind eye to increasing income (taxes or fees)  but give these expansion of benefits very freely.  

       

      I am not saying that the benefits aren’t needed in many cases but good grief, find the income to support the added benefits.  

      IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
      T
      Tonster521
      Community Champion ⭐
      February 10, 2025

      @GailL1 The math never worked for Survivor Benefits . They have been essentially subsidized from the start.I believe the multiple divorced spouse situation requires 10 years of marriage for each of the first three. It is possible. Anyway, on another thread, I pointed out that Survivor Benefits have a reduction of approximately 4% per year for beginning before FRA .at age 67. That means that a Survivor may receive approximately 80% at age 62. Whereas a Worker receives only 70% at age 62 if FRA is age 67. Some may look at the numbers and state it is only 10%. However, the Survivor receives about 33.3% greater benefits than a Worker at age 62 when FRA is 67. I do not know why. On another thread, I mentioned that it would make sense and be fair to all folks, married and single, to impose a cost, similar to the cost of a Pre Retirement Survivor Annuity (PRSA) pursuant to ERISA. Essentially, once a married couple attains 10 years of marriage, they need to elect such coverage at a cost of .006/year which is deducted from the Worker's Benefit. So, if the parties elect such coverage at age 55 and keep it for 10 years, the Worker's SS Benefit will be reduced 6% (.006 rimes 10 years). This is a simplified version of the ERISA  benefit which very few have because many defined benefit pension plans have been froze or terminated and replaced with defined contribution plans (i.e., 401 K, etc.)

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement