Marrying for SS survivor's benefits?

[ItDontMeanAThing]

Something doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is if one is married for at least 9 months, then the surviving spouse qualifies for SS survivor benefits. If that's true, why aren't people routinely harvesting survivor's benefits via marriages of convenience to an older person?

Assume the spouse is a US citizen who qualifies for his/her own SS benefits.

 

[Accidental Retiree]

Something doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is if one is married for at least 9 months, then the surviving spouse qualifies for SS survivor benefits. If that's true, why aren't people routinely harvesting survivor's benefits via marriages of convenience to an older person?

Assume the spouse is a US citizen who qualifies for his/her own SS benefits.

Off the top of my head, I believe it's a marriage of 10 years or more.

 

[Brat]

That is for divorced couples where the recipient is alive. I don't see any length of marriage requirement for widows or widowers.

 

[ItDontMeanAThing]

I'm not a lawyer nor can I read like one. Here are the SSA definitions of Spouse Surviving Spouse. It states 9 months. Social Security Act §216

 

[youbet]

Yep, it's 9 months.

 

[haha]

Something doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is if one is married for at least 9 months, then the surviving spouse qualifies for SS survivor benefits. If that's true, why aren't people routinely harvesting survivor's benefits via marriages of convenience to an older person?

Assume the spouse is a US citizen who qualifies for his/her own SS benefits.

Maybe the older person doesn't feel like marrying the convenient spouse?

Also, if she is say 18, so the old fella feels like it might be worth the trouble, she won't start getting any money until she is 60- or she manages to produce children.

I think if I were a young woman and wanted to harvest something, I would move to LA or Boston, hang around a hospital late at might and seduce some dead tired surgeon, tell him not to bother with condoms 'cause I am on the pill. Then be sure to carry the pregnancy to term. Harvest all that lovely child support, then after a few years do it again, rinse and repeat. You may have to change hospitals from time to time, and avoid chlamydia or anything that might damage your fertility.

Ha

 

[donheff]

I think it would be a better deal to harvest the survivor benefit of a widowed Federal retiree. Maybe I will go pick up a young thing in Thailand if DW dies. Oh wait, I'm not attracted to 20 somethings. Nuts, I will have to move to the Villages.

 

[travelover]

It has been done before

Despite the fact that the Civil War ended April 9, 1865 (53,630 days ago, for reference), the government is still paying out veterans' pensions.
Records from the Department of Veterans' Affairs show that two children of Civil War veterans, as of September, are receiving pensions from their fathers' service.

U.S. Government Still Pays Two Civil War Pensions - US News

 

[athena53]

Marriage brings on all kinds of nasty civil consequences. If the old person doesn't have enough money to pay their out-of-pocket medical and LTC costs, your assets/income are fair game. I'd choose my ancient husband carefully.


In my case, if I outlive DH I'm unlikely to marry again because I don't want my finances entwined with anyone else's for the convenience of the state.


I could, however, be persuaded to change my mind if George Clooney becomes available. ;-)

 

[rodi]

I agree with Athena - there are financial implications and reasons for marrying or NOT marrying.

My mom was a county worker with a nice pension. My dad got full surivivor benefits as long as he remained single. So he had a nice COLAd reason not to legally remarry. My stepmom was a widow collecting SS from her dead husband. I think she also had her first husbands military pension (she met my dad when she was in her late 70's so the previous marriages were long marriages.)

My dad and step mom were in love - but between them they had more than $5k of income at risk if they got legally married. Instead they became "registered domestic partners" which gave them many of the civil rights of marriage (ability to make end of life decisions for each other in a hospital, etc.) They would have gone without any legal binding agreement if California hadn't had the Reg.Dom.Partner thing for same sex and senior couples. (hetero couples who were under 50 didn't qualify.)

I think it's reasonable for couples to look at the financial implications of their civil arrangements.

 

[Mulligan]

I think it would be a better deal to harvest the survivor benefit of a widowed Federal retiree. Maybe I will go pick up a young thing in Thailand if DW dies. Oh wait, I'm not attracted to 20 somethings. Nuts, I will have to move to the Villages.

Funny, I got the same problem. I was attracted to them for 30 years, but have not been in more recent years. Probably a medical issue, I need to set up a doctor appt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Accidental Retiree]

That is for divorced couples where the recipient is alive. I don't see any length of marriage requirement for widows or widowers.

Thanks for clarifying. I've got 36 years in April with DH so haven't paid attention!

 

[Accidental Retiree]

Marriage brings on all kinds of nasty civil consequences. If the old person doesn't have enough money to pay their out-of-pocket medical and LTC costs, your assets/income are fair game. I'd choose my ancient husband carefully.


In my case, if I outlive DH I'm unlikely to marry again because I don't want my finances entwined with anyone else's for the convenience of the state.


I could, however, be persuaded to change my mind if George Clooney becomes available. ;-)

Yeah, I imagine he could pay his way into old age. He might be a safe enough bet for ya!

 

[Choices]

Marriage brings on all kinds of nasty civil consequences. If the old person doesn't have enough money to pay their out-of-pocket medical and LTC costs, your assets/income are fair game. I'd choose my ancient husband carefully.


In my case, if I outlive DH I'm unlikely to marry again because I don't want my finances entwined with anyone else's for the convenience of the state.


I could, however, be persuaded to change my mind if George Clooney becomes available. ;-)

I was saving myself for Burt Reynolds or Tom Selleck but they both got so damned old...

 

[Chuckanut]

I could, however, be persuaded to change my mind if George Clooney becomes available. ;-)

Finally, a man rich enough to allow you live in the style you want to be accustomed to??

 

[W2R]

In my case, if I outlive DH I'm unlikely to marry again because I don't want my finances entwined with anyone else's for the convenience of the state.

+1000 That's exactly how F and I both feel. After working a lifetime, we each have accumulated a nestegg that is sufficient. Neither of us wants to mix finances with anybody else because we can't afford to start over at this age.

I could, however, be persuaded to change my mind if George Clooney becomes available. ;-)

Please, go right ahead. Neither George Clooney nor Clint Eastwood (my favorite) could even begin to persuade me to re-enter what I regard as the financial/monetary arrangement of state sanctioned marriage. A personal commitment that doesn't include financial entanglements or the approval of government entities can be equally binding to honorable and trustworthy couples.

As for SS survivor's benefits, to me it has never been worth it to even consider marrying for these benefits alone, any more than it would be worth marrying for alimony alone. Each to his/her own. I regard myself as more capable, self-reliant, and upright than to do that.

 

[athena53]

As for SS survivor's benefits, to me it has never been worth it to even consider marrying for these benefits alone, any more than it would be worth marrying for alimony alone. Each to his/her own. I regard myself as more capable, self-reliant, and upright than to do that.

My favorite horror story of poor retirement planning was my step-grandma. She and Grandpa met and married after my Grandma died; both were in their 70s. Her first husband was also deceased. When he died she found out that he'd selected his pension option that paid the highest payments but provided no survivor benefits (apparently in the years before a spouse had to sign off on that). So, the payments stopped although she did get the SS Widow's benefit. Her kids told her that if she wanted to live decently she'd have to marry a guy who was financially stable. Enter Grandpa.

In fairness it was a good marriage but how awful to be casting around for a husband in your 70s because you need the money.

 

[Car-Guy]

Please, go right ahead. Neither George Clooney nor Clint Eastwood (my favorite) could even begin to persuade me.

There's not enough money in the world.

 

[Sunset]

I know a fella and gal that got hitched, he was dying of cancer, and they were definitely friends.
He suggested she marry him quick so she could collect pension etc. He died within weeks of getting married.
Then she got herself a nice 20 yr younger fella, sold the house and moved West !

 

[ItDontMeanAThing]

Marriage brings on all kinds of nasty civil consequences.

D'oh! Of course it's the potential civil liability. Taxes too, to a much lesser degree.

I know one 52 year old woman who mostly likely could use the benefits and who has lived her life by a set of core principles such that I know she would do the right thing. Whether that's enough to ensure such an arrangement against adverse outcomes will require legal advice.

Thanks for the help.

 

[prose3589]

This subject is of serious interest to me. My SO and I have been together 12 years. Own a home in joint tenancy. Each are small business owners with our own children and bitter divorces. We do not want to marry. However he is 14 years older and his ss survivor benefit to me would be a chunk of change. Seems like a lot of money to leave to the government. We may marry someday for this reason alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Mulligan]

This subject is of serious interest to me. My SO and I have been together 12 years. Own a home in joint tenancy. Each are small business owners with our own children and bitter divorces. We do not want to marry. However he is 14 years older and his ss survivor benefit to me would be a chunk of change. Seems like a lot of money to leave to the government. We may marry someday for this reason alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

Prose, due to the age difference I would make sure he has a long term care policy in effect and keep it current. Otherwise that SS survivor benefit may come at a very steep price!
I have a SO and this option will not test either ones desire to marry. I live on an option 1 pension that dies with me and have no SS. She has SS but GPO would eliminate any chance of me receiving any of her SS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[prose3589]

Thanks Mulligan. The long term care insurance is definitely something to consider. His family history is not so great.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[athena53]

I have a SO and this option will not test either ones desire to marry. I live on an option 1 pension that dies with me and have no SS. She has SS but GPO would eliminate any chance of me receiving any of her SS.

And remember that you'd get the larger of a Widow's benefit or what you're entitled to on your own record, not both. In my case, the Widow's benefit is worthless to me after I hit my own Full Retirement Age because I'll get close to the max SS benefit on my own record.

 

[spectrallight]

When I was 29 I fell in love with a wonderful, older man. Despite the age difference it was a romantic dream for both of us. I guess we thought we were Annette Benning and Warren Beatty types. He had no health problems whatsoever when we married six years later. Within seven months, though, he was diagnosed with cancer metastasized to his entire body. He died less than three months later.

It was a grueling experience, and there were moments when I thought that I, myself, would not survive the emotional impacts. Luckily he had good health insurance. His prognosis was so bad, that this 57 year old man was referred to hospice the same day his cancer was diagnosed. He had no adult children, and I was his primary caregiver (with hospice support) at home until almost the very end. I was glad to be there for him, but to say that it took a lot out of me, is an understatement.

My point mainly is, when you marry anyone, you take on not only civil commitments, but emotional as well. "'Til death do us part", and caring for a dying individual is similar to caring for an infant. Only, much sadder, with the loved one's suffering, and your own imminent loss. (If you didn't love the spouse and married for money or benefits, it would be a nightmare. And, good luck trying to fob off the work on someone else.)

Yes, I am now 58, and I anticipate getting survivor's SS in about a year and a half. A bit earlier, and a bit more money, than my own earnings record would garner. Coming at a high price, though.