This should answer your questions.

Here is a link that might be useful: Survivor Plan

A widow/widower (even if divorced) can collect at age 60, even younger if he/she is disabled.

Been there, done that. My DH died when i was 59. Waited untl age 60, and went down to SS office to start collecting on his record. And, you can still work.and keep increasing your eventual benefit until age 70.
If you work, and make more and your work income was higher than his... you can hold off collecting on your own SS benefit before you reach age 70, you will get much higher amount at this age.
Beware, you cannot collect on his SS, then collect your own, and decide to go back on his.

I wonder what the record is for the number of women receiving benefits from one man. A man's widow and all his ex-wives would get the same benefits as long as the former marriages lasted at least ten years. I suppose a man who lived a long life could have as many as eight spouses who could qualify.

I never heard of this until a cousin learned she could finally afford to retire, thanks to qualifying for benefits from her ex-husband's Social Security.

Chisue,

I didn't know the rules regarding SS fo ex-wives had changed ??

My former Brother in law died, and only his ex was eligible for his SS,even tho they had been divorced for over 10 years. The only way his #2, the wife when he died, would have gotten it is if #1 had remarried before his death.

Only one person can collect spousal death benefits.

this is why women should look up the rules before marrying a divorced man(or woman marrying a divorced man).

I don't believe so, I think it is correct that previous wives can collect and the other wife/wives never know it. If they were married and qualify by years etc they can collect from his SS.

here is a quote from this website
"A former spouse can receive benefits under the same circumstances as a current spouse or widow/widower if the marriage lasted 10 years or more. Benefits paid to a surviving divorced spouse will not affect the benefit rates for other beneficiaries. Please note that in general, a person applying as a widow/widower cannot receive benefits if they remarry before the age of 60 (50 if disabled) unless the latter marriage ends, whether by death, divorce, or annulment. However, remarriage after age 60 (50 if disabled) will not prevent payments on a former spouse's record."
Effect of multiple spouses on a record

and more here about qualifying
Qualifying for divorced spouse benefits

My grandmother collected a small portion of grandfather's SS when he passed. They had been divorced for at least 30 years. Second wife was none to happy about my grandmother getting some of his benefits. LOL

My 'knowledge' is anecdotal. When I asked my cousin, she said she received the same Soc. Sec. benefit as that received by her ex-husband's widow. My cousin and her ex had been married many years and had three grown children when they divorced. I felt she'd *earned* it. She was quite surprised by this when she went to file for her own meager benefits.

I was told when I went to file for SS, then when my ex passes, I can file for his benefits. as we had been married long enough to be qualified. As well as his two other ex's!

Lady told me I would get a substanial increase from his benefits over my benefits.

But he's still kicking :o) and he's 9 years older than me.

Good info!~Thanks y'all.

I do not think people go around marrying and divorcing so they can get the maximum Social Security "payout". This is simply the way the Social Security procedures were written, in an effort to protect women who mainly toiled as unpaid housewives.

I agree with jannie. I'd guess it was originally written to benefit 'the little woman'. Today 'the little woman' is sometimes making more than her DH, and he is the spouse who can benefit!

I'm noticing that the word is "spouse" -- not 'significant other' or 'life partner', and it probably doesn't apply to gay couples who are not permitted to become 'spouses'.

ravencajun..I believe it is as YOU posted, not Monica.
And Monica wrong about something, oh my.

Some of these rules don't make sense to me. It sure seems like there are a lot of ways to get far more social security benefits than were ever paid in. I don't blame people for taking advantage of the rules in place but I sure don't understand them.

I understand and agree with survivor benefits but I really don't understand how a non-working spouse can get half of the working spouses benefits despite never paying in. It seems that it should be distributed at a household level based on household income if the marriage is maintained into retirement.

It also doesn't make sense to me that multiple ex's can all collect the same amount. I don't understand how the system can sustain itself by paying out so much more than was contributed. But I guess that's why it's supposedly going bankrupt.

If I'm wrong about any of these, please correct me as I would love to know the truth. My research has only shown me tips and tricks to maximizing benefits.

I've been paying social security for 10 years and have another 35 to go. I really wish it were optional because I am pretty sure I will never see this money again.

Think about all the single people that have paid in for years and yet die before collecting anything, plus those who die just a few years after starting to collect. Their contributions are still in there and no one can collect them.
Too, only a spouse can collect the measley 'death benefit'. A single person isn't eligible for this to help a relative bury them.

Agree w/ ShellySeatle, that MonicaPa's info is erroneous. Subsequent wives might decide to not collect on their former spouse's SS if their own SS entitlement is larger than the ex's. But they all ARE entitled to if it is to their benefit.

I agree there are things "wrong" w/ the SS system, but there is no perfect system & the good far out weighs the bad in it. Chi83 if you had those SS dollars to invest you still could come out @ the end of 45 years with little or nothing. Life has its risks. Another problem is that for many people, they can't or won't save anything towards retirement. We would end up with a lot more elderly/disabled paupers without SS, I'm afraid.

shelly :o)

I always think of Social Security as (government enforced) insurance. Remember when Bush wanted to make it optional, so that people could invest as they pleased -- and then the whole mortgage 'tranch' business fell apart when the housing bubble burst, and the stock market disintegrated?

Like all insurance, the 'risk' is spread. I doubt Social Security will ever be permitted to fail. It's not politically smart to anger a large mass of voters.

Still wondering about my theoretical much-married man and his ex-wives...LOL