A widow does not have to “live in sin” to get Social Security

Q: My mother told me she remembered a time when women had to “live in sin” (those are her words) in order not to lose Social Security benefits. She couldn’t elaborate, but she believes some older women still have to today. Do you know what he is talking about?

To: Yes, I know exactly what he’s talking about. It has to do with the payment of Social Security widowhood benefits. And it’s a good story about how Social Security and politics can make strange bedfellows!

I must begin by explaining the thinking behind widow’s benefits. They, along with other payments available to wives (and to a much lesser extent, husbands) and minor children, fall under the broad category of what the law calls “survivor and auxiliary benefits.” These are benefits that must be paid to the dependents of someone who receives a Social Security retirement or disability check or to the survivors of a worker who has died.

The concept of “dependency” is a key qualifying factor. In other words, a potential auxiliary beneficiary or survivor must prove that he was financially dependent on the spouse or main parent.

To prevent people from having to submit all kinds of personal and financial records as part of the application process, the law provides shortcuts to help prove dependency. For example, with only a few exceptions, children are considered dependent on a parent with whom they live.

In the case of a spouse, the law assumes that the person with the lowest Social Security benefit was likely financially dependent on the person with the highest Social Security benefit.

For example, let’s say Tom is 66 years old and receives $2,800 a month from Social Security. His 62-year-old wife, Becky, must pay $700 in her own monthly retirement benefits. Because Becky has the lowest Social Security benefit, she is presumed to be financially dependent on Tom and therefore qualifies for spousal benefits on her record. On the other hand, Tom, with his much larger Social Security retirement check, could not be considered financially dependent on Becky.

Having established the basic rule of “dependency” as a qualifying factor for spousal benefits, let’s get to the fun part of this column: the sin part!

We have to go back in time to about 50 years ago. Millions of women were collecting widow’s benefits from their late husband’s Social Security accounts. Some of these women, after an appropriate period of mourning, might begin to lock eyes with a handsome bachelor or widower they met at the bingo hall, senior center, or produce aisle of their local supermarket. . (This was long before online dating became a way to find a potential partner.)

Sometimes sparks would fly and the sweet and charming old couple would decide to get married. It was all happiness and happiness until the wife realized this: If she got married, she would lose the widow’s benefits she was collecting from her first husband’s Social Security!

How could that be? Well, it all has to do with this concept of “dependency” as a qualifying factor for your widow’s benefits. To reiterate, she was receiving these benefits because she was considered financially dependent on her first husband. But if she married husband #2, the law would consider her the dependent spouse of this new guy. This meant that she could no longer be considered dependent on her first husband. Therefore, you would no longer qualify for widow’s benefits from your Social Security record.

So how did he avoid this law? Well, that’s where the “sin” came in. If the couple were just living together, rather than legally bound, they could still collect their widow’s benefits from their first husband.

Eventually, the media picked up on this trend of transgression. They had a field day with him. Newspaper headlines across the country said something like this: “Widow must live in sin to avoid losing Social Security check.” Television reports included interviews with costumed women who reported, “I am ashamed to say that I am living in sin to avoid losing my government benefits.” Whatever the report, the “living in sin” phase was always the common thread.

It became a national embarrassment that a federal law required these sweet little grannies to live outside the bonds of marriage. Eventually, the pressure was too much for the red-faced members of Congress. They couldn’t act fast enough to change the law. In 1977, they changed the law to say that a woman who remarried after age 60 could continue to receive widow’s benefits from her first husband’s Social Security account. (The law went into effect a couple of years later.)

This law is still in force today. But of course today, the whole concept of “living in sin” as a social taboo is almost laughable. For example, in my neighborhood alone, there are several couples who have been living together for years, single. It’s just not a big deal.

On the other hand, there are also many older people in love who want to make everything legal and get married. If the wife receives a Social Security widow’s check, she has absolutely no fear of losing those benefits from husband #1 if she decides to walk down the aisle with husband #2.

If you have a question about Social Security, Tom Margenau has two books with all the answers. It’s called a Social Security: Simple and Smart: 10 easy-to-understand fact sheets that will answer all your Social Security questions. The other is Social Security: 100 myths and 100 facts. You can find the books on Amazon.com or other bookstores. Or you can email him at [email protected]. To learn more about Tom Margenau and to read past columns and see features by other Creators Syndicate writers and artists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.