I believe i said they were all married 10 years in my example....and yes my example is over the top.
the point is - even one marriage that remains ongoing where the spouse never contributes - there is 1.5 shares going out at retirement while only one share was put in while the primary spouse was working. if an individual has 2 marriages each over 10 years..,..and those definitely do happen....then there are 2 full shares going out (1 for primary and 1/2 for each of 2 spouses). the primary beneficiary does not need to die before the secondary beneficiaries can collect. they can draw concurrently.
Most people are also unaware that if the primary is still living and has kids under 18 - the kids are also entitled to collect when the parent hits 70. (While not common - people do become parents in their 50s - my sister had her first at 48 and the 2nd at 51) I was very surprised to hear they allowed kids of living parents could collect as I always thought the parent had to be deceased for the kid to be eligible. (I was one of those kids as my dad died when I was 3 ) That over 70 parent while not common does happen on occasion...
The program was never set up to sustain the additional burden of noncontributing spouses or kids of living parents which is the whole point i was trying to make.... Combine this with a population that is growing older and living longer than they did in the 1930s when the program was established .... is why social security needs to be fixed.
So - not for the sake of discussion on this channel but more for one to ponder - do you place a huge tax burden on everyone putting into the program to support those who don't pay into it? Do you grandfather in those who are already receiving and redesign the program to reduce the primary beneficiary's monthly allowance in order to allow the secondary beneficiary to receive a portion of the primary's contribution? Do you disallow secondary beneficiaries from receiving in the future? Do you raise the limits for contributions which are maxed out annually (2019 will be $8200 per year) to unlimited contributions at the current 6.2%? Do you increase the 6.2% SS tax to a higher percentage of earnings (i.e. 7, 8 or 9 percent of earnings)?? If you increase the percentage - do you do it to everyone or just the higher earners (i.e. the 1% (unlikely the amounts can sustain program solvency) ? Do you still make people earning higher wages contribute the maximum but disallow them from receiving anything when they reach age eligibility because they made a higher wage and were able to save more money or contribute to a 401k or some other fund to help them support their retirement?
There is no easy fix - and not everyone will be happy no matter the results. But it has to be fixed or everyone is going to be in a heap of hurt.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
