Editor’s Note: After a long career in the data processing industry, Russell Gloor joined the Association of Mature American Citizens in 2013. Gloor received training from the National Social Security Association and was accredited by the NSSA® as a Social Security adviser in 2016. Currently part of the AMAC Foundation’s Social Security Advisory team, he annually counsels thousands of American seniors about their Social Security options. In addition to answering Social Security questions daily, he also authors the AMAC Foundation’s nationally syndicated weekly “Ask Rusty” advice column and has written three instructional books about Social Security.

Dear Rusty: Why can a nonworking spouse claim half of their working spouse’s benefit even though they have not contributed to the Social Security system? This doesn’t seem right or fair to those of us who have contributed for years from our paychecks. Signed: Inquisitive

Dear Inquisitive: This is a question which needs a bit of historical background to properly explain: Social Security’s original purpose when it was enacted in 1935 was to prevent America’s seniors from living in poverty (remember, Social Security was enacted during the “Great Depression”). Even before the first Social Security check was sent to a retired worker in 1940, Congress had already changed the original Social Security law to, as well, provide anti-poverty benefits to nonworking spouses of a worker (a predominant family reality at that time) and surviving spouses, as well as to their minor children. Social Security’s fundamental goal has always been to lift eligible Americans out of poverty, which it still does very effectively.

It’s important to note this change did not (and does not) detract in any way from the benefits provided to those who work and contribute to Social Security thus earning their own Social Security retirement benefit. In other words, those who receive their personally earned Social Security retirement benefit are not at all penalized if their nonworking spouse also receives a benefit (albeit a considerably smaller amount) on the worker’s record. Living expenses for two people are, simply, higher than for one, which was/is the rationale for also paying benefits to a dependent not eligible for Social Security benefits on their own work record. In the end, it all comes down to avoiding poverty.

Although the numbers vary somewhat by state, gender and ethnicity, without Social Security about 38% of all Americans over age 65 would be living below the poverty line, whereas with Social Security only about 9% of Americans over 65 live below the poverty line. But that 9% number would be significantly higher if nonworking spouses and survivors of eligible workers were also not entitled to Social Security benefits.

While it is true that Social Security is facing future solvency issues, the thought of restricting benefits to only those who have worked and contributed to the program (and not to their nonworking spouses or minor children) is not something being considered by anyone with Congressional influence, regardless of political affiliation. Doing so would be devastating to a large segment of the American population, severely increasing poverty – the very thing that Social Security is designed to prevent.

This article is intended for information purposes only and does not represent legal or financial guidance. It presents the opinions and interpretations of the AMAC Foundation’s staff, trained and accredited by the National Social Security Association. NSSA® and the AMAC Foundation and its staff are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Social Security Administration or any other governmental entity. To submit a question, visit the website (amacfoundation.org/programs/social-security-advisory) or email ssadvisor@amacfoundation.org.