... We identified 30,768 individuals receiving retirement benefits as of January 2019 who may be eligible for additional widow(er)’s benefits. From this population, we selected a random sample of 100 beneficiaries for review. ...
Of the 100 retirement beneficiaries sampled, 69 were eligible for higher widow(er)’s benefits. Of these 69 widow(er)s, there were
- 20 who filed claims and whom SSA determined were entitled to widow(er)’s benefits before the start of our audit and
- 49 who were eligible for approximately $630,000 in widow(er)’s benefits. ...
This occurred because SSA (1) employees did not always assess and take action when cases were alerted for possible payment increases, and/or (2) did not have processes to detect beneficiaries potentially eligible for higher widow(er)s benefits. Based on the results of our review, we estimate 15,076 retirement beneficiaries were eligible for $193.8 million in widow(er)’s benefits as of September 2019. Further, we estimate 12,615 of these beneficiaries could lose an additional $530.9 million in widow(er)’s benefits over their lifetimes. ...
Social Security agreed that it will have to do something to address this problem.
My guess is that the underpaid group includes more widowers than you might think. A lot of widower claims get missed because the widowers just don't think of applying for benefits on their late wife's account. In my experience two types of claims most often missed are Disabled Adult Child and Widowers benefits.
9 comments:
There is some benefit for filing for Widower benefits. If the person is still working and earning decent wages they can file for Widowers Benefits at Full Retirement Age. At that point, they are not subject to the earnings test. The major benefit is that the person's own benefits increase at the rate of 8% per year. At the age of 70 the Widower would then need to file for their own retirement benefits at an greatly increased rate.
Never understood the arbitrary rules of the disabled widow or widower's benefits. Basically, a disabled spouse has to be disabled between 50 and 60 years and the disability starts within 7 years of the spouse's death. Always thought those spouses under 50 were given the shaft. Would seem like a young mother (or father) would maybe need those benefits more if possibly caring for younger children. Maybe they could extend the rules to those spouses with children. Also why 7 years?
@4:30
Also weird rules regarding the length of marriage. I recall listening to an oral argument where the numberholder had died (accidentally) a day before the 3 month minimum. The debate was whether 90 days (qualified for benefits) was a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language ("three months"), or if it was 3 full months (i.e. 92 days and disqualified for benefits)...it was 3 full months.
As to a young mother or father needing benefits for younger children, it does seem arbitrary. But, maybe the survivor's benefits are meant to satisfy that need.
Parents of children under 16 get benefits anyway. After child turns 16 they get them if child is disabled. They have seven years after their youngest child turns 16 to get them if they become disabled. . Personally I think they should do away with widow and widower benefits all together. Why d a widow or widower get benefits at age 60 even without being disabled w hen everyone else has the be 66 or 67
So a guy that dies In late April of a non leap year would be okay but a guy that dies on January 30th would be screwed? That’s insane!
There is no length of marriage requirement if death is accidental. But has to be an accident, not a heart attack, stroke, etc. I paid a widow who had her husband die a couple of days after they were married in a motorcycle accident. https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0335.htm
@430 parents with children under 16 or disabled before age 22 are eligible for survivor benefits.
@525 see above link. The three months has to do with date of death from the accident. If the couple has been married 6 months at the time of the accident, they are good to go no matter when the injured spouse dies as the minimum limit for non accidental death is 9 months.
@1011 Widows do get paid at 60 but only 71.5% of the wage earners primary insurance amount. Everyone else can get retirement at 62 with some reduction--depends on person's full retirement age for the percentage.
@2:26
5:26 here. I understand the duration limits set, it just seems odd to impose a variety limits from a practical standpoint. Is there a logic (maybe somewhere in the annuals of legislative history) explaining why a distinction is made between accidental vs non-accidental? I presume the fact there is a duration requirement at all is meant to prevent deathbed marriages, although also I would be curious as to how 9 months was arrived at. I'm not criticizing the system, more curious as to how the variety of specific durational limits were arrived at.
The first poster brought up the Widow's Disability requirements of between 50 and 50 and 7 years after the death of the wage earner. It is actually 7 years after the death of the wage earner or 7 years after the date the last survivor benefits was paid. I had a case like this a number of years ago. The client's husband died about 15 years in the past. She had minor children who collected survivor benefits from their father. The widow became disabled and between 50 and 60, more than 7 years after her husband died but within 7 years of the last survivor benefits being paid to her children.
@ 1121 I would agree with your guess re length of marriage requirement so that terminal folks don't just marry someone to give that person the right to benefits.
Accidental vs non-accidental--non accidental is something that possibly could have been foreseen, even if it's a stroke or similar event?
9 months seems pretty short to me for survivors benefits but 12 months for spouse benefits seems short to me too. Luckily I wasn't in on determining those numbers as I would think I'd have come up with some that are at least 2-3X longer.
Post a Comment