# Social security spousal benefits **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541 "2015-11-03T18:00:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/1 "2015-11-03T18:00:35Z")
The current social security spousal benefits system for retirement is 1/2 of the spouse’s benefit while the spouse is living (if it’s lower than one’s own) and the spouse’s benefit upon their death. This spousal benefit is not paid for by the earner. A requirement is that the marriage has lasted more than 10 years. This current system benefits families with a long-term single earner at the expense of every one else. Combined with the income cap for social security taxes, the higher marriage rates and longer marriages, and the tendency to be able to afford not working long term, it benefits high income earners the most. It also leaves lower-earning (LE) spouse with a benefit that may be too small if divorced, since the LE spouse’s own social security credits are not counted. An example from the Congressional Research Service report [“Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors” (pdf)](http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2011/documents/R41479_gb.pdf), p 20: > [@](#): > > A one-earner couple may receive higher retirement and survivor benefits > than a two-earner couple with identical total household earnings. Specifically, the first couple with one earner [with annual income $34k] receives a total of $2,025 in monthly retirement benefits, compared to the second couple with two earners [each with annual income $17k] which receives a total of $1,750 in monthly retirement benefits. Similarly, the survivor of the one-earner couple receives $1,350 in monthly benefits (either as a retired worker or as a surviving spouse). In comparison, the survivor of the two-earner couple with identical total household earnings receives $875 in monthly benefits. Should the system be changed? For example, should a worker’s social security credit be shared with their spouse as they are earned, so the LE spouse does not have to choose their own benefits or half of their spouse’s? Should workers be required to pay for extra spousal credits? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/2 "2015-11-03T18:39:30Z")
I agree that SS has been a mess when it comes to spousal benefits. It got to the point that it was so complicated and full of loopholes that choosing the correct strategy became a for-profit industry. The [budget](http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151030/FREE/151039996/advisers-rethink-retirement-plans-amid-social-security-changes) bill signed into law yesterday has closed two of the bigger loopholes. As I understand it, going forward each spouse will get a benefit based on their own earnings record and survivors get the larger benefit. Also, no more ‘file and suspend’ by one spouse while the other collects a 50% benefit while both wait for maximum payments at age 70. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/3 "2015-11-03T18:53:42Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > I agree that SS has been a mess when it comes to spousal benefits. It got to the point that it was so complicated and full of loopholes that choosing the correct strategy became a for-profit industry. > > The [budget](http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151030/FREE/151039996/advisers-rethink-retirement-plans-amid-social-security-changes) bill signed into law yesterday has closed two of the bigger loopholes. > > As I understand it, going forward each spouse will get a benefit based on their own earnings record and survivors get the larger benefit. Also, no more ‘file and suspend’ by one spouse while the other collects a 50% benefit while both wait for maximum payments at age 70. File and suspend is removed, but spousal benefits are still the same as before – the larger of one’s own benefit of half of spouse’s. The problems stated in the OP largely remain. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/4 "2015-11-04T01:21:43Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > File and suspend is removed, but spousal benefits are still the same as before – the larger of one’s own benefit of half of spouse’s. The problems stated in the OP largely remain. This sucks, because I was going to do that in three years. You can hardly ask someone to pay extra for spousal benefits when it is not clear that they will have a spouse at 66 or 70. So that doesn’t work. If you object to spousal benefits, do you want a spouse - who has no doubt contributed to the marriage and society in many ways - to get nothing? Or a small amount for a small number of quarters? Spousal benefits only make sense when one spouse has out-earned the other significantly. Since these are nothing new, and probably cost the system more when more spouse had low earnings as opposed to today, I suspect the cost was baked into the system. And while we’re going to lose money by them doing away with file and suspend, I can’t blame them, because that nice little scam became too popular. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/5 "2015-11-04T03:02:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You can hardly ask someone to pay extra for spousal benefits when it is not clear that they will have a spouse at 66 or 70. So that doesn’t work. We ask workers to pay when it’s not guaranteed they’ll live to 66 or 70. In my proposal, the non-working spouse would own those credits that are paid for, as if they earned them. In most pension systems, spousal benefits are not “free”. One can choose reduced payouts for a survivor benefit, for example. > [@](#): > > If you object to spousal benefits, do you want a spouse - who has no doubt contributed to the marriage and society in many ways - to get nothing? Or a small amount for a small number of quarters? Spousal benefits only make sense when one spouse has out-earned the other significantly. I don’t see how someone who is a spouse has automatically contributed to society. But SS benefits have nothing to do with contributions to marriage or society anyway. I am objecting to some people getting an extra return on their SS contributions simply because they were in a marriage with vastly unequal incomes. This is unfair to unmarried people, people in more equal marriages, gays and lesbians who couldn’t marry for a long time, black people who have a lower marriage rate, etc. > [@](#): > > Since these are nothing new, and probably cost the system more when more spouse had low earnings as opposed to today, I suspect the cost was baked into the system. What does “baked into the system” mean? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/6 "2015-11-04T06:33:00Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > We ask workers to pay when it’s not guaranteed they’ll live to 66 or 70. In my proposal, the non-working spouse would own those credits that are paid for, as if they earned them. Those who don’t get benefits they paid for because they are dead seldom object. There is also the issue of paying for spousal benefits in the beginning, and then if the spouse works enough quarters to get benefits having them be useless. Yes, this also applies to oneself, but only if you make more. In most pension systems, spousal benefits are not “free”. One can choose reduced payouts for a survivor benefit, for example. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how someone who is a spouse has automatically contributed to society. But SS benefits have nothing to do with contributions to marriage or society anyway. I am objecting to some people getting an extra return on their SS contributions simply because they were in a marriage with vastly unequal incomes. This is unfair to unmarried people, people in more equal marriages, gays and lesbians who couldn’t marry for a long time, black people who have a lower marriage rate, etc. Let’s not generalize to an entire group because some subset doesn’t choose to get married. The way to fix the real unfairness to gays and lesbians is to let them get married. Plus, their model was probably more the two income earner model than the one spouse staying home model, and so they wouldn’t have qualified for spousal benefits even if they had been married. Social Security’s model is for people earning money use some of it to save for retirement. A hypothetical person on welfare all his or her life would not qualify. But if someone who earns money looking after children would contribute, why not someone taking care of children and not directly earning a salary? > [@](#): > > What does “baked into the system” mean? The level of the FICA tax is clearly set to include paying spousal benefits. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/7 "2015-11-04T11:36:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There is also the issue of paying for spousal benefits in the beginning, and then if the spouse works enough quarters to get benefits having them be useless. Yes, this also applies to oneself, but only if you make more. You misunderstood. I am proposing pooling the “spousal” credits with the “earned” credits for the lower earning spouse. I.e. if someone is a non-worker for 15 years, and worker for 25, their spousal credits paid for in those 15 years would be added to the earned credit for the other 25 years. This would give them a higher pay out than if they were only entitled to half their spouse’s benefit. Which would be especially useful if divorce rates are high. > [@](#): > > Let’s not generalize to an entire group because some subset doesn’t choose to get married. The way to fix the real unfairness to gays and lesbians is to let them get married. Plus, their model was probably more the two income earner model than the one spouse staying home model, and so they wouldn’t have qualified for spousal benefits even if they had been married. Getting married is not a matter of choice for many people. And how is it fair that for the same household income, for the same total SS contributions, a one-earner couple gets a higher benefit than a two-earner one? Especially considering that the one-earner couple didn’t pay childcare costs all these years so the net income for the two-earner couple was in fact smaller. > [@](#): > > Social Security’s model is for people earning money use some of it to save for retirement. A hypothetical person on welfare all his or her life would not qualify. But if someone who earns money looking after children would contribute, why not someone taking care of children and not directly earning a salary? The same reason someone working in a non-profit organization would get a SS benefit but someone volunteering in the same NGO does not. Because the former contributed to SS when they earn a salary and the later did not. You seem to not understand the first sentence in the paragraph quoted above. Just as non-earning spouses currently have the right to contribute to their own IRA, I think they should have the right to contribute to their own SS so they can get a benefit later. > [@](#): > > The level of the FICA tax is clearly set to include paying spousal benefits. It was also set to allow file-and-suspend. It was found to be not fair, so we abolish it. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/8 "2015-11-04T18:40:58Z")
I’m pretty much expecting that by the time I reach retirement age, that such social security benefits will be greatly reduced or non-existent. And I just turned 50. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/9 "2015-11-04T20:31:21Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > I’m pretty much expecting that by the time I reach retirement age, that such social security benefits will be greatly reduced or non-existent. And I just turned 50. I have been hearing that same story for 40 years. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/10 "2015-11-05T13:46:51Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > I’m pretty much expecting that by the time I reach retirement age, that such social security benefits will be greatly reduced or non-existent. And I just turned 50. This endemic gloom and doom perspective is a little infuriating. SS needs a couple of tweaks to remain solvent. And if the federal coffers become seriously depleted, maybe we should start finally taking a serious look at giant expenditures elsewhere like our massively overfunded armed forces. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/11 "2015-11-05T14:50:21Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > I have been hearing that same story for 40 years. Well, relative to inflation, _net_ Social Security retirement benefits have gone down substantially. Mostly that’s because Medicare Part B premiums are automatically deducted, and those premium costs are skyrocketing while benefits are static relative to inflation. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/12 "2015-11-05T15:05:07Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > I have been hearing that same story for 40 years. The issue is, that I’m not counting on anything to come from SS for my retirement. If it is there, then more vacations for me and the old lady. If it’s not, I’ll still be fine. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/13 "2015-11-05T15:07:45Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Should the system be changed? For example, should a worker’s social security credit be shared with their spouse as they are earned, so the LE spouse does not have to choose their own benefits or half of their spouse’s? Should workers be required to pay for extra spousal credits? I would say yes, it should be shared with the spouse. If you’re married, then 1/2 your credit goes to you and 1/2 goes to your spouse. That would protect the lower-earning spouse in a divorce. If the credit is shared as it is earned, then it would be as if both spouses were earning the same amount. I think it’s unfair that the spouse who stays home to raise the kids does gets lower SS benefits than the working spouse. The working spouse is able to make a higher salary and have higher SS benefits because the other spouse is staying home to care for the kids. Sharing the SS credit across both spouses seems like the most equitable way to handle it to account for divorces. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/14 "2015-11-05T17:27:08Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > The issue is, that I’m not counting on anything to come from SS for my retirement. If it is there, then more vacations for me and the old lady. If it’s not, I’ll still be fine. The retirement age might get raised, but you are probably far enough along for it to not affect you. Benefits might get cut, but I suspect raising the ceiling would inspire a lot less yelling than cutting benefits. However, SS is a nice little adder to the money you need for a good retirement, and will almost certainly pay for more than a vacation or two. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/15 "2015-11-05T17:32:18Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I would say yes, it should be shared with the spouse. If you’re married, then 1/2 your credit goes to you and 1/2 goes to your spouse. That would protect the lower-earning spouse in a divorce. If the credit is shared as it is earned, then it would be as if both spouses were earning the same amount. I think it’s unfair that the spouse who stays home to raise the kids does gets lower SS benefits than the working spouse. The working spouse is able to make a higher salary and have higher SS benefits because the other spouse is staying home to care for the kids. Sharing the SS credit across both spouses seems like the most equitable way to handle it to account for divorces. Divorced spouses who have been married long enough (10 year IIRC) do get spousal benefits. And if you balanced the benefits, it would be 3/4 and 3/4, since the system today is paying for 1.5 x the full benefit in this case. There are also survivor benefits. It is all in the Get What’s Yours book, which is a lot less useful with the new law though. I guess the issue is if SAHS’s deserve anything from the system without incremental payments by the working spouse. We’ve had that argument before and I won’t participate in a hijack of this thread any longer. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/16 "2015-11-05T20:51:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Divorced spouses who have been married long enough (10 year IIRC) do get spousal benefits. But only half of their spouse’s. > [@](#): > > And if you balanced the benefits, it would be 3/4 and 3/4, since the system today is paying for 1.5 x the full benefit in this case. Why should people with unequal earning marriages get more than everyone else? You haven’t given any reason. > [@](#): > > There are also survivor benefits. Which are higher for the couples with unequal incomes compared to the ones with equal income (because it’s the higher of the two benefits). Again, how is this fair? > [@](#): > > I guess the issue is if SAHS’s deserve anything from the system without incremental payments by the working spouse. We’ve had that argument before and I won’t participate in a hijack of this thread any longer. How is that a hijack? That’s the point of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/17 "2015-11-05T20:52:33Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I would say yes, it should be shared with the spouse. If you’re married, then 1/2 your credit goes to you and 1/2 goes to your spouse. That would protect the lower-earning spouse in a divorce. If the credit is shared as it is earned, then it would be as if both spouses were earning the same amount. I think it’s unfair that the spouse who stays home to raise the kids does gets lower SS benefits than the working spouse. The working spouse is able to make a higher salary and have higher SS benefits because the other spouse is staying home to care for the kids. Sharing the SS credit across both spouses seems like the most equitable way to handle it to account for divorces. Exactly. Growth in retirement accounts such as 401k during marriages is shared equally like all assets. I don’t know why SS should be different. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/18 "2015-11-06T00:40:37Z")
SS and pensions work differently from a 401K or IRA- once the money runs out in a 401K or IRA, that’s it. You can’t collect anymore. With pensions and SS, people can collect far more than they contribute. And pensions work differently than SS- I can arrange for my husband to receive a pension payment after my death- but my benefit will be lowered in life to account for that. ``` Let's pretend me ,my husband and a friend (lets call him Joe) all got the same job at the same time, right out of college. And it's the type of job (like some government jobs) where all widget makers with the same experience earn the same salary. And we all retire at the same time. So for 40 years, the three of us have the same earnings. Each of us contributes the same to social security - lets call that X dollars, and we each earn the same benefit, $Y. Joe contributes X and collects Y. My husband and I contribute 2X and we collect 2Y. Fine so far. ``` But let’s say Joe gets married. And she’s a SAH wife for the entire time. Now, my husband and I contribute 2X and get 2Y, but Joe contributes X and gets 1.5 Y. If Joe’s worked but had a smaller benefit than him, the numbers will be different but until her benefit equals Joe’s, he will always benefit more from his contributions than my husband and I will. I don’t see how that’s fair - if society wants to give Joe’s wife a benefit, give them each half of his. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/19 "2015-11-06T01:08:47Z")
I don’t find it helpful to think about SS as a ‘pension’. It has been designed as a social insurance system to protect against disability, loss of parents, poverty in retirement and other scenarios. It is deliberately designed so that benefits are reduced for those contributors with higher income levels - can’t think of a pension that does that. Given that, SS retirement benefits give us a base income retirement, hopefully to keep us from being indigent and on welfare rolls. Since a married couple can probably live cheaper than two singles, the 1.5x makes some sense for couples with a SAHS. Perhaps couples with two earners should not be allowed to double up and get individual benefits while married. Instead pool their earnings (treat it as one higher income) for purposes of calculating a single benefit amount larger than 1.5x but smaller than 2.0x. (However, the calculations would be very, very complicated by different ages, working years and marriage duration.) ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-spousal-benefits/736541/20 "2015-11-06T02:08:07Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > I don’t find it helpful to think about SS as a ‘pension’. It has been designed as a social insurance system to protect against disability, loss of parents, poverty in retirement and other scenarios. > > It is deliberately designed so that benefits are reduced for those contributors with higher income levels - can’t think of a pension that does that. > > Given that, SS retirement benefits give us a base income retirement, hopefully to keep us from being indigent and on welfare rolls. Since a married couple can probably live cheaper than two singles, the 1.5x makes some sense for couples with a SAHS. > > Perhaps couples with two earners should not be allowed to double up and get individual benefits while married. Instead pool their earnings (treat it as one higher income) for purposes of calculating a single benefit amount larger than 1.5x but smaller than 2.0x. > > (However, the calculations would be very, very complicated by different ages, working years and marriage duration.) SS retirement benefits are not the same as SSI, which is insurance against indigence and not tied to contributions. SS retirement benefits are tied to contributions. The two can live for cheaper argument doesn’t work, since benefits don’t depend on current household size. Right now two earners already have a lower rate of return – even for the same household income – than single earners. Two workers making $17k each are getting a smaller benefit than a one earner couple making $34k. Do you mean the contributions of the two-earner couple would also reduce under your plan? Because otherwise the unfairness is increased, not decreased.