Being angry about social security is unwarranted if we’re being misled by false information.
Every single day, more than a few of the emails I get from readers start out with this (or a similar) phrase: “I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security!”
They proceed to do just that. Sadly, their little rant is almost always wrong and based on a misunderstanding of Social Security rules or misinformation they picked up—usually off the internet.
These diatribes are of two main types: political and program-related. I’m not going to deal with the political ones today. I’ve concluded that it is not worth it. People will spout off the most ridiculous nonsense to me about the politics or financing of Social Security. And when I try to set the record straight, they almost always write back and tell me they don’t believe me. So I figure: Why bother?
But on the program and policy side, I can still help people understand the way Social Security works. Let’s go over some of them.
Q: I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security. There are too many multiple wives getting benefits on one guy’s record. A guy can have three or four or even more wives, and all of them can collect on his account. No wonder the system is going broke!
A: I suppose anything is possible. But the situation you describe is highly unlikely. I worked for the Social Security Administration for 32 years. During that time, I probably saw 100,000 Social Security records. Only once do I remember a case in which three wives were getting benefits from one guy’s account. I never saw four or more. Even two spouses on one record isn’t as common as you might think.
And why is that? It would be very rare for a guy to have multiple wives, all of whom never worked and never remarried. In other words, lots of these ex-wives have worked. So they are much more likely to get their own retirement benefit than a much smaller spousal benefit. And most times, a divorced woman will remarry. Once she does that, she loses her eligibility for benefits from her ex-husband.
Q: I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security. It’s all these benefits that are paid to women who never worked a day in their lives. Get rid of these welfare benefits and the system would be flush with cash!
A: I hear this a lot. And as I’ve pointed out before, many of the complaints I’ve heard about this issue come from working women. I’m not going to touch the social debate between working women and stay-at-home moms with a 10-foot pole. I will, however, comment on the Social Security angle.
Ever since 1939, the law has stated that a retiree’s dependent wife should qualify for a partial spousal benefit. (Benefits to dependent husbands were added years later, but for today’s column, I’m sticking with the issue of wives.) The law is essentially saying that because a guy with a stay-at-home wife supported that wife with his income while he was working, the Social Security taxes he paid on that income should support his wife after he retires with spousal benefits.
Q: I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security. I always knew that children of a parent who dies can get Social Security survivor benefits. That makes sense. But I just learned that they recently added benefits to the children of a living retiree. And that makes no sense. No wonder the system is in trouble!
A: Benefits to the children of retirees have been around since 1939; they were not “recently added.” Anyway, those benefits are based on the same concept discussed in the previous answer: dependency. Once again, the law assumes that the guy was supporting those kids while he was working, and now that he’s retired, the Social Security taxes he paid should go toward supporting his kids with dependent benefits. Two more quick points: I wasn’t being sexist by referring to a “guy.” For obvious biological reasons, it would be very unusual for a woman in her 60s to have a minor child still living at home. Also, even if you still think the children of retirees should not get benefits, you are not going to save Social Security by eliminating them. Those benefits are a tiny drop in Social Security’s big bucket.
Q: I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security. Most people might not know this, but Social Security benefit calculations are always rounded down. This is a sneaky process the bureaucrats invented to cheat senior citizens out of the money they are rightfully due!
A: Government employees don’t have the authority to do things like this, but Congress does. Back in the 1980s, they were looking for ways to cut down on government spending. They came up with the idea of rounding down the “cents” part of all Social Security calculations. For example, if your actual benefit amount comes out to $2,854.32, that will be rounded down to $2,854. Those pennies add up to millions of dollars in savings for the government every year.
I said the myths I tackle in today’s column wouldn’t be political, but I just have to include this final one. It’s not really about politics; it’s about politicians and Social Security.
Q: I'll tell you what’s wrong with Social Security. It’s the fact that Social Security rules are made by people who have no stake in the system. Congress, and all federal employees for that matter, have their own cushy retirement system that none of us normal people have access to. We are stuck with a failing Social Security system. If we could force Congress to become part of Social Security, they would fix the program tomorrow!
A: Your idea perpetuates a common myth about Social Security. In fact, since 1984, all federal government employees, including the president and all members of Congress, have paid into Social Security. Now it is true that if they want, they can have extra taxes withheld from their paycheck that can be directed into a savings plan intended to augment their Social Security benefits. But this is no different from 401(k) and 403(b) plans available to many folks in the private sector.
Dear Readers: We would love to hear from you. What topics would you like to read about? Please send your feedback and tips to [email protected] 
