Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

November 5, 2010 – September 21, 2021 R41479

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for
Spouses and Survivors
Updated September 21, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R41479

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Summary
Social Security auxiliary benefits are paid to the spouse, former spouse, survivor, child, or parent
of a Social Security–covered worker and are equal to a specified percentage of the worker’s basic
monthly benefit amount (subject to a maximum family benefit amount). For example, the spouse
of a retired worker may receive up to 50% of the retired worker’s basic benefit and the widow(er)
of a retired worker may receive up to 100% of the retired worker’s basic benefit.
When auxiliary benefits were first established, most households consisted of a single earner—
usually the husband—and a wife who cared for children and remained out of the paid workforce.
As a result, benefits for nonworking spouses were structured to be relatively generous. A woman
who was never employed but is married to a man with high Social Security–covered wages may
receive a Social Security spousal benefit that is higher than the retirement benefit received by a
single woman, or a divorced woman who was married less than 10 years, who worked a full
career in a low-wage job.
In recent decades, this household structure has changed in part because women have entered the
workforce in increasing numbers. The labor force participation rate of women with children under
the age of 18 increased from 47.4% in 1975 to 72.4% in 2019. As a result, many women now
qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work records. Women are, however, more
likely than men to take breaks in employment to care for family members, which can result in
fewer years of contributions to Social Security and employer-sponsored pension plans.
Beneficiaries who qualify for multiple benefits do not receive both benefits in full. For example,
for a beneficiary eligible for his or her own retired-worker benefits as well as spousal benefits, the
spousal benefit is reduced by the amount of the retired-worker benefit. The beneficiary receives a
reduced spousal benefit (if not reduced to zero) in addition to his or her retired-worker benefit.
This effectively means the beneficiary receives the higher of the two benefit amounts. Because of
this, a two-earner household may receive lower total Social Security benefits than a single-earner
household with identical total Social Security–covered earnings.
Another change since 1939 has been an increase in the number of men and women who remain
single or who have divorced. Persons who have never been married, or divorced before 10 years
of marriage, generally do not qualify for Social Security spousal or survivors benefits under
current law.
Proposals to modify the Social Security auxiliary benefit structure are often motivated by a desire
to improve adequacy for certain beneficiaries, or equity between a two-earner household and a
one-earner household with similar earning profiles. For example, some proposals address the
adequacy of benefits for certain groups of beneficiaries, such as elderly and widowed women.
Although Social Security plays an important role in the retirement security of aged women, about
14.4% of widowed women aged 65 or older, 15.8% of divorced elderly women, and 16.9% of
never-married elderly women had family incomes below the official poverty line in 2019.

Congressional Research Service

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Introduction
Social Security provides dependent benefits and survivors benefits, sometimes collectively
referred to as auxiliary benefits, to the spouses, former spouses, widow(er)s, children, and parents
of retired, disabled, or deceased workers.1 Auxiliary benefits are based on the work record of the
household’s primary earner.
Social Security spousal benefits (i.e., benefits for a wife or husband of the primary earner) are
payable to the spouse or divorced spouse of a retired or disabled worker. Social Security survivors
benefits are payable to the survivors of a deceased worker as a widow(er), as a child, as a mother
or father of the deceased worker’s child(ren), or as a dependent parent of the deceased worker.
Although Social Security is often viewed as a program that primarily provides benefits to retired
or disabled workers, 31% of new benefit awards in 2020 were made to the dependents and
survivors of retired, disabled, and deceased workers.2
Spousal and survivors benefits play an important role in ensuring women’s retirement security.
However, women continue to be vulnerable to poverty in old age, due to demographic and
economic reasons. This report presents the current-law structure of auxiliary benefits for spouses,
divorced spouses, and surviving spouses. It makes note of adequacy and equity concerns of
current-law spousal and widow(er)’s benefits, particularly with respect to female beneficiaries,
and discusses the role of demographics, the labor market, and current-law provisions on adequacy
and equity. The report concludes with a discussion of proposed changes to spousal and widow(er)
benefits to address these concerns.
Origins of Social Security Auxiliary Benefits
The original Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) established a system of Old-Age Insurance
to provide benefits to individuals aged 65 or older who had “earned” retirement benefits through
work in jobs covered by the system. Before the Old-Age Insurance program was in full operation,
the Social Security Amendments of 1939 (P.L. 76-379) extended monthly benefits to workers’
dependents and survivors. The program now provided Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI).3
The 1939 amendments established benefits for the following dependents and survivors: (1) a wife
aged 65 or older; (2) a child under the age of 18; (3) a widowed mother of any age caring for an
eligible child; (4) a widow aged 65 or older; and (5) a surviving dependent parent aged 65 or
older.
In its report to the Social Security Board (the predecessor to the Social Security Administration)
and the Senate Committee on Finance, the 1938 Social Security Advisory Council justified
creating spousal benefits on the grounds of the adequacy of household benefits:
The inadequacy of the benefits payable during the early years of the old-age insurance
program is more marked where the benefits must support not only the annuitant himself
but also his wife. In 1930, 63.8 per cent of men aged 65 and over were married. Payment
of supplementary allowances to annuitants who have wives over 65 will increase the

1 As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Social Security Administration is now able
to recognize same-sex marriages and certain nonmarital legal relationships in all states, territories, and the District of
Columbia.
2 Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2021(in progress), Table 6.A1, at
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2021/6a.html#table6.a1.
3 Congress later established the Disability Insurance (DI) program in 1956.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 30 link to page 5 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

average benefit in such a manner as to meet the greatest social need with the minimum
increase in cost. The Council believes that an additional 50 percent of the basic annuity
would constitute a reasonable provision for the support of the annuitant’s wife.4
The Social Security Board concurred in its own report, which it wrote based on the council’s
report. The board also found that benefit adequacy was the primary justification for spousal
benefits:
The Board suggests that a supplementary benefit be paid for the aged dependent wife of
the retired worker which would be related to his old-age benefit. Such a plan would take
account of greater presumptive need of the married couple without requiring investigation
of individual need.5
Since 1939, auxiliary benefits have been modified by Congress many times, including the
expansion of benefits to husbands, widowers, and divorced spouses.6 The legislative history of
auxiliary benefits is outlined in detail in Appendix A.
Auxiliary Benefits
Auxiliary benefits for a spouse, survivor, or other dependent are based on the benefit amount
received by a primary earner (an insured worker). The primary earner may receive a Social
Security retirement or disability benefit. Social Security retirement benefits are based on the
average of a worker’s highest 35 years of earnings from covered employment.7 A worker’s basic
benefit amount (primary insurance amount or PIA) is computed by applying the Social Security
benefit formula to the worker’s career-average, wage-indexed monthly earnings (average indexed
monthly earnings or AIME).8 The benefit formula replaces a higher percentage of the
preretirement earnings of workers with low career-average earnings than for workers with high
career-average earnings.
The primary earner’s initial monthly benefit is equal to his or her PIA if benefits are claimed at
full retirement age (FRA, which ranges from age 65 to age 67, depending on year of birth). A
worker’s initial monthly benefit will be less than his or her PIA if the worker begins receiving
benefits before FRA, and it will be greater than his or her PIA if the worker begins receiving
benefits after FRA. The purpose of the actuarial adjustment to benefits claimed before or after
FRA is to ensure that the worker receives roughly the same total lifetime benefits regardless of
when he or she claims benefits (assuming he or she lives to average life expectancy).
Auxiliary benefits are paid to the spouse, former spouse, survivor, child, or parent of the primary
earner.9 Auxiliary benefits are determined as a percentage of the primary earner’s PIA, subject to

4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Advisory Council on Social Security: Final Report, committee print,
76th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 1938, S. Prt. 76-4 (Washington: GPO, 1939), p. 15, https://www.finance.senate.gov/
imo/media/doc/76PrtAdvisoryCouncil.pdf.
5 Social Security Board, A Report to the President and to the Congress of the United States, December 30, 1938,
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/reports/38ssbadvise.html.
6 Court decisions have led to changes in interpretation or implementation of existing provisions of law. See an example
in footnote 1.
7 The number of benefit computation years for disabled or deceased workers may be fewer than 35 years.
8 Years of earnings are indexed up to the second calendar year before the year of earliest eligibility (i.e., the year in
which the worker first attains age 62, becomes disabled, or dies). Years of earnings after the last indexing year are
counted in nominal (i.e., unadjusted) dollars. For more information of Social Security benefit computation, see CRS
Report R43542, How Social Security Benefits Are Computed: In Brief.
9 Benefits for the dependent children and parents of an insured worker are not discussed in this report. For a brief
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 31 link to page 9 link to page 8 link to page 31 link to page 9 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

a maximum family benefit amount. For example, the spouse of a retired or disabled worker may
receive up to 50% of the worker’s PIA, and the widow(er) of a deceased worker may receive up
to 100% of the worker’s PIA. As with benefits paid to the primary earner, auxiliary benefits are
subject to adjustments based on age at entitlement and other factors. A basic description of
auxiliary benefits is provided in the following sections, with more detailed information provided
in Appendix B.
Currently Married or Separated Spouses
Social Security provides a spousal benefit that is equal to 50% of a retired or disabled worker’s
PIA.10 A qualifying spouse must be at least 62 years old or have a qualifying child (a child who is
under the age of 16 or who receives Social Security disability benefits) in his or her care. A
qualifying spouse may be either married to or separated from the worker. An individual must have
been married to the worker for at least one year before he or she applies for spousal benefits, with
certain exceptions. In addition, the worker must be entitled to (generally, collecting) benefits in
order for an eligible spouse to become entitled to benefits.11
If a spouse claims benefits before FRA, his or her benefits are reduced to take into account the
longer expected period of benefit receipt. An individual who is entitled to a Social Security
benefit based on his or her own work record and to a spousal benefit in effect receives the higher
of the two benefits (see “Dually Entitled Beneficiaries” below).
Widows and Widowers
Under current law, surviving spouses (including divorced surviving spouses) may be eligible for
aged widow(er) benefits beginning at the age of 60. If the surviving spouse has a qualifying
disability and meets certain other conditions, survivors benefits are available beginning at the age
of 50. The aged widow(er)’s basic benefit is equal to 100% of the deceased worker’s PIA.
A qualifying widow(er) must have been married to the deceased worker for at least nine months
and must not have remarried before the age of 60 (or before age 50 if the widow[er] is disabled).12
Widow(er)s who remarry after the age of 60 (or after age 50 if disabled) may become entitled to
benefits based on the prior deceased spouse’s work record. Widow(er)s who are caring for
children under the age of 16 or disabled may receive survivors benefits at any age and do not
have to meet the length of marriage requirement—see “Mothers and Fathers” below.
If an aged widow(er) claims survivors benefits before FRA, his or her monthly benefit is reduced
(up to a maximum of 28.5%) to take into account the longer expected period of benefit receipt. In
addition, survivors benefits may be affected by the deceased worker’s decision to claim benefits
before FRA under the widow(er)’s limit provision (see Appendix B). As with spouses of retired
or disabled workers, a surviving spouse who is entitled to a Social Security benefit based on his
or her own work record and a widow(er)’s benefit receives in effect the higher of the two benefits
(see “Dually Entitled Beneficiaries” below).

background on those benefits, see “Benefits for Children,” https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf, and “Parent’s
Benefits,” https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10036.pdf.
10 As noted above, a retired worker’s own monthly benefit may be higher or lower than his or her PIA. A disabled
worker’s benefit is equal to his or her PIA. A retired or disabled worker’s monthly benefit may be subsequently
adjusted for earnings derived while in receipt of benefits, certain offsets, or other reasons.
11 As discussed below, different rules may apply in the case of a divorced spouse.
12 Exceptions are provided in some cases such as accidental death or death in the line of duty.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Mothers and Fathers
Social Security provides benefits to a surviving spouse or divorced surviving spouse of any age
who is caring for the deceased worker’s child, when that child is either under the age of 16 or
disabled. Mother’s and father’s benefits are equal to 75% of the deceased worker’s PIA, subject
to a maximum family benefit. There are no length of marriage requirements for mother’s and
father’s benefits, whether the beneficiary was married to, separated from, or divorced from the
deceased worker; however, remarriage generally ends entitlement to mother’s and father’s
benefits.
Divorced Spouses
Spousal benefits are available to a divorced spouse beginning at the age of 62, if the marriage
lasted at least 10 years before the divorce became final and the person claiming spousal benefits
is currently unmarried.13 A divorced spouse who is younger than 62 years old is not eligible for
spousal benefits even with an entitled child in his or her care. Survivors benefits are available to a
divorced surviving spouse beginning at the age of 60 (or beginning at age 50 if the divorced
surviving spouse is disabled) if the divorced surviving spouse has not remarried before the age of
60 (or before age 50 if disabled), or if the surviving divorced spouse has an entitled child in his or
her care.
Divorced spouses who are entitled to benefits receive the same spousal and survivors benefits as
married or separated persons. If a divorced spouse claims benefits before FRA, his or her benefits
are reduced to take into account the longer expected period of benefit receipt. In addition, a
divorced spouse who is entitled to a Social Security benefit based on his or her own work record
and a spousal or survivor benefit receives in effect the higher of the two benefits (see “Dually
Entitled Beneficiaries” below).
Data on Duration of Marriages
A divorced person who was married to a primary earner for less than 10 years does not qualify for
spousal benefits on that spouse’s record (although he or she may qualify for benefits based on his
or her own record or on another spouse’s record).14 First marriages that end in divorce have a
median duration of 8 to 12 years.15 Table 1 shows that the proportions of males and females who

13 As noted previously, generally the worker must have claimed benefits for an eligible spouse to become entitled to
benefits. An eligible divorced spouse, however, may become independently entitled to benefits if the worker is eligible
for (but has not yet claimed) benefits and the couple has been divorced for at least two years. (Social Security
Administration, Program Operations Manual System [POMS], Section RS 00202.001 [Spouse], http://policy.ssa.gov/
poms.nsf/links/0300202001). If a person has more than one former spouse, he or she is entitled to a spousal benefit
based on the earnings record of the highest-earning spouse.
14 As noted above, a divorced surviving spouse may qualify for mother’s or father’s benefits regardless of the length of
marriage to the primary earner.
15 One study showed that first marriages which ended in divorce lasted a median of 8 years for men and women overall,
using data from Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2008 Panel. (U.S. Census Bureau, Number,
Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009, May 2011, Table 8, http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/
p70-125.pdf.) Another study finds that the median duration of the first marriage at time of divorce for women age 15
and older is 12 years using American Community Survey, 2012. (Spangler A., and Payne, K.K.(2014). Marital
Duration at Divorce, 2012, (FP-14-11), National Center for Family & Marriage Research.) In addition, one study
shows that the average duration of marriage among those who divorced by age 46 is about 9.2 years using the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Marriage and divorce: patterns by gender, race, and
educational attainment, October 2013, available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-
patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm.)
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

have a marriage that lasted longer than 10 years was higher from 1960 to 1964 than those in
recent decades. About 83% of women who married for the first time during the early 1960s
stayed married for 10 years or longer; for women who married between 1970 and 1999, about
69%-76% of women’s first marriages have lasted for 10 years or more.
Table 1. Percentage Reaching 10th Marriage Anniversary, by Marriage Cohort and
Sex, for First Marriages
Year of Marriage
Male
Female
1960-1964
83.4
82.8
1965-1969
80.0
79.3
1970-1974
73.6
71.5
1975-1979
71.3
70.4
1980-1984
74.3
73.2
1985-1989
69.2
69.0
1990-1994
70.9
73.5
1995-1999
73.6
75.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009, May 2011, Table 4;
and Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2016, April 2021, Table 10.
Other data suggest that, for men and women aged 15 to 44 between 2006 and 2010, the
probability of a first marriage lasting 10 years or longer was 68%. The probability that a first
marriage would remain intact for at least 10 years was 73%, 56%, and 68% for Hispanic, black,
and white women, respectively.16 In addition, among the women who were first divorced in 2012,
60% of them had a marriage lasting for 10 or more years.17
Dually Entitled Beneficiaries
A person may qualify for a spousal or survivor benefit as well as for a Social Security benefit
based on his or her own work record (a retired-worker benefit). In such cases, the person in effect
receives the higher of the worker benefit and the spousal or survivor benefit. When the person’s
retired-worker benefit is higher than the spousal or survivor benefit to which he or she would be
entitled, the person receives only the retired-worker benefit. Conversely, when the person’s
retired-worker benefit is lower than the spousal or survivor benefit, the person is referred to as
dually entitled and receives the retired-worker benefit plus a spousal or survivor benefit that is
equal to the difference between the retired-worker benefit and the full spousal or survivor benefit.
In essence, the person receives a total benefit amount equal to the higher spousal benefit.
Women have increasingly become entitled to Social Security benefits based on their own work
records, either as retired-worker beneficiaries only or as dually entitled beneficiaries. As shown in
Figure 1, the percentage of women aged 62 or older entitled to benefits based on their own work
records—as retired workers or as dually entitled beneficiaries—grew from 43.3% in 1960 to

16 Casey E. Copen et al., First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family
Growth, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Statistics Report no. 49, March 2012, Figures 5,
available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf.
17 Spangler A., and Payne, K.K.(2014). Marital Duration at Divorce, 2012. (FP-14-11), National Center for Family &
Marriage Research. Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/
documents/FP/FP-14-11-marital-duration-2012.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

81.4% in 2020. More than half of this growth was in the percentage of dually entitled
beneficiaries. The percentage of women aged 62 or older entitled to benefits based solely on their
own work records fluctuated between 36.1% and 42.3% between 1960 and 2005, before
increasing to 57.5% in 2020. In 2020, 42.5% of women aged 62 or older relied to some extent on
benefits received as a spouse or survivor: 23.9% of spouse and survivor beneficiaries were dually
entitled and 18.6% received spousal or survivors benefits only.
Figure 1. Basis of Entitlement to Social Security Benefits for Women Aged 62 or
Older, 1960-2020,
Selected Years

Source: Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2021(in progress), Table 5.A14,
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2021/5a.html#table5.a14.
As shown in Table 2, among wives who were dually entitled spousal beneficiaries in December
2020, the retired-worker benefit accounted for 68% of the combined monthly benefit (the retired-
worker benefit with a top-up provided by the spousal benefit) and the spousal benefit accounted
for 32% of the combined monthly benefit, on average. Among widows who were dually entitled
survivor beneficiaries, the retired-worker benefit and the widow’s benefit each accounted for
about half of the combined monthly benefit, on average. Many more women than men are dually
entitled to retired-worker benefits and spousal or widow(er)’s benefits. As shown in the table, in
December 2020, about 7.1 million women and 283,203 men were dually entitled to benefits.
Table 2. Average Benefit Levels Among Retired Workers With Dual Entitlement,
December 2020

Average Monthly Benefit:
Retired-
Reduced
Combined
Worker
Secondary
Type of Secondary Benefit
Number
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
All
7,355,201
$1,388
$791
$597
Spouses
3,171,510
947
643
304
Wives of Retired and
Disabled Workers
3,066,288
950
643
306
Congressional Research Service

6

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Average Monthly Benefit:
Retired-
Reduced
Combined
Worker
Secondary
Type of Secondary Benefit
Number
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
Husbands of Retired and
Disabled Workers
105,222
878
635
242
Widow(er)s
4,183,329
1,722
903
819
Widows
4,005,348
1,725
889
835
Widowers
177,981
1,661
1,203
458
Parents
362
1,575
697
877
Source: Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2021(in progress), Table 5.G3,
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2021/5g.html#table5.g3.
Note: Retired-worker benefit and reduced secondary benefit might not sum to the combined benefit due to
rounding.
Women, Social Security, and Auxiliary Benefits
Spousal and survivors benefits play an important role in ensuring women’s retirement security. In
December 2020, about 27.5 million elderly (aged 65 and older) women received Social Security
benefits, including 15.4 million women who received only retired-worker benefits, 2.0 million
women who were entitled solely as the spouse of a retired or disabled worker, 3.1 million women
who were entitled solely as the survivor of a deceased worker, and 6.9 million women who were
dually entitled to a retired-worker benefit and a spousal or survivor benefit.18 In 2015, Social
Security provided 50% or more of family income for about 42% of women aged 65 and older in
beneficiary families and 90% or more of family income for about 15% of aged women in
beneficiary families.19
Women continue to be vulnerable to poverty in old age for several reasons. These reasons can
generally be split into demographic reasons and economic reasons. In addition, the design of
auxiliary benefits can lead to equity concerns.
With respect to demographic and economic reasons that lead to adequacy concerns,
 Women on average live longer than men, and thus more women are likely to be
widowed than are men. Women reaching the age of 65 in 2020 are likely to live
another 19.5 years, on average, compared with another 17.0 years for men.20 In
2019, about 4% of women aged 50-59, about 14% of women aged 60-75, and
about 47% of women aged 75 and older were widowed. By comparison, about
2% of men aged 50-59, about 5% of men aged 60-75, and about 17% of men

18 Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2021 (in progress), Table 5.A15,
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2021/5a.html#table5.a15.
19 Irena Dushi and Brad Trenkamp, Improving the Measurement of Retirement Income of the Aged Population, Social
Security Administration, the Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, Working paper series Number 116, January
2021.
20 The Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, The
2021 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Funds, 2021, Table V.A4.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 link to page 17 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

aged 75 and older are widowed.21 As a consequence, women may spend more
time in retirement and are more vulnerable to inflation and the risk of outliving
other assets. The real value of private pension benefits declines with age, as
private pensions are generally not adjusted for inflation, and some private
pensions cease with the death of the retired worker.
 Women are more likely to take employment breaks to care for children or
parents, and thus have a lower labor force participation rate than men. During
2019, about 89.1% of men and 76.0% of women aged 25-54 participated in the
labor force.22 The rate for women with children under three years old was lower,
at 63.8%.23 Breaks in employment result in fewer years of contributions to Social
Security and employer-sponsored pension plans and thus lower retirement
benefits.
 The median earnings of women who are full-time wage and salary workers were
81.5% of their male counterparts in 2019.24 Because Social Security and private
pension benefits are linked to earnings, this “earnings gap” can lead to lower
benefit amounts for women than for men.
Social Security benefits are designed in a way that can result in inequities between households
with similar earning profiles. Spousal and survivors benefits were added to the Social Security
system in 1939. At that time, the majority of households consisted of a single earner—generally
the husband—and a wife who was not in the paid workforce but instead stayed home to care for
children. However, in recent decades, women have increasingly assumed roles as wage earners or
as heads of families.
A beneficiary who qualifies for both a retired-worker benefit and a spousal benefit does not
receive both benefits in full. Instead, the spousal benefit is reduced by the amount of the retired-
worker benefit; this effectively means the beneficiary receives the higher of the two benefit
amounts. Because of this, a two-earner household receives lower combined Social Security
benefits than a single-earner household with identical total Social Security–covered earnings,
despite paying more in Social Security taxes. Moreover, after the death of one spouse, the
disparity in benefits may increase: in a one-earner couple, the surviving spouse receives two-
thirds of what the couple received on a combined basis, whereas in some two-earner couples with
roughly equal earnings, the surviving spouse receives roughly one-half of what the couple
received on a combined basis.25
Adequacy Issues
Social Security is credited with keeping many of the elderly out of poverty. However, 6.8% of
Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 or older were below the poverty threshold in 2019.26 Figure

21 CRS Analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Annual Social and Economic Supplements to the Current
Population Survey (CPS ASEC).
22 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, April 2021, Table 1, https://www.bls.gov/opub/
reports/womens-databook/2020/home.htm.
23 Ibid., Tables 5 and 7.
24 Ibid., Table 16. If the population were ranked from lowest to highest based on earnings level, the earnings level at the
middle of the distribution would be the median value. At most half of the population would have earnings less than the
median value, and at most half of the population would have earnings greater than the median value.
25 See the example in Table 4.
26 CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 CPS ASEC. The measure described and used in this report
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 link to page 13

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

2 highlights the differences in poverty status among men and women aged 65 or older who
received Social Security benefits in 2019, after Social Security is combined with other sources of
income such as earnings from work, pensions, income from assets, and cash assistance.27
Figure 2. Poverty Status of Social Security Beneficiaries Aged 65 or Older in 2019, by
Sex and Marital Status

Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2020 Annual Social and
Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC).
Notes: Married persons are married and living with their spouse. Nonmarried persons may be divorced,
widowed, never married, separated, or married but living apart from their spouse. Because the categories are by
marital status, the “widowed” and “divorced” categories wil include beneficiaries receiving widow(er) and
divorced spouse benefits and beneficiaries receiving retired-worker benefits (based on his or her own work
record). Definitions and methodology are consistent with Social Security Administration, Income of the Population
55 or Older, 2014, April 2016, Table 11.3, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2014/
sect11.html#table11.3.
Figure 2 shows that married beneficiaries had significantly lower poverty rates than nonmarried
beneficiaries in 2019. Widowed and divorced women aged 65 or older were more likely to be in
poverty than their male counterparts. Among women aged 65 and older, about 12.3% of widowed
Social Security beneficiaries, 12.5% of divorced beneficiaries, and 13.3% of never-married
beneficiaries had total incomes below the official poverty line in 2019. Among Social Security
beneficiaries aged 65 and over, poverty rates were also high among never-married men, at a rate
of 16.9% in 2019.
The reasons for the disparity in poverty rates among elderly men and women relate in part to
women’s lower lifetime earnings, which affect Social Security benefits and private pensions. Low
lifetime earnings can be due to lower labor force participation of women and the earnings gap. In

is a statistical measure of poverty—the official poverty thresholds published by the Census Bureau—and is different
from another set of dollar figures called poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. For details see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty Measurement.
27 In 2019, the poverty threshold for a single person aged 65 or older was $12,261 and for a married couple with a
householder aged 65 or older (and no related children) it was $15,453. (Source: Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.)
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 15 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

addition, women live two to three years longer than men on average, making them more likely to
exhaust retirement savings and other assets before death. In addition, if the deceased husband was
receiving a pension, the widow’s benefit may be significantly reduced, or the pension may cease
with the husband’s death, depending on whether the couple had a joint and survivor annuity and
how the joint and survivor annuity was structured. Elderly widows also may be at risk if assets
are depleted by health-related expenses prior to the spouse’s death.
Labor Force Participation of Women
During the past several decades, the labor force participation rate among women increased, but
still remained below the rate among men. In 1950, about 34% of women aged 16 or older
participated in the labor force, compared with about 86% of men aged 16 or older. By 2019, about
57% of women aged 16 or older participated in the labor force, compared with 69% of men in the
same age group.28 Women are also more likely than men to work part-time (i.e., less than 35
hours per week in a sole or principal job). In 2019, about 23% of women in wage and salary jobs
worked part-time, compared with 12% of men.29
Women with children under the age of 18 have increasingly entered the labor force in recent
decades (see Figure 3). However, women with children have fewer years of paid work, on
average. By the age of 50, women without children who were born between 1948 and 1958 had
worked on average about two years less than men overall (i.e., men with and without children).
For a woman with two children, however, the gap at the age of 50 was about 6.5 years less than
the average man with or without children.30 In 2020, about 66% of mothers were employed,
compared with 89% of fathers.31

28 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, April 2021, Table 2,https://www.bls.gov/opub/
reports/womens-databook/2020/home.htm; and CRS Report R44055, An Overview of the Employment-Population
Ratio.
29 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, April 2021, Table 21.
30 Melissa M. Favreault and C. Eugene Steuerle, The Implications of Career Lengths for Social Security, Urban
Institute, Discussion Paper no. 08-03, 2008, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411646_careerlengths.pdf.
31 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Characteristics of Families Summary, April 2021, table 4,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm.
Congressional Research Service

10

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Figure 3. Labor Force Participation Rates of Women with Children, 1975-2019

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, April 2021, Table 7.
In addition to childcare, women are also more likely than men to provide care to a spouse, a
parent, or some other adult relative. One survey estimates that, among 39.8 million caregivers
who have provided unpaid care to an adult in 2015, 60% of them are female.32 Some researchers
find that female caregivers tend to work fewer hours per week and earn a lower wage than non-
caregivers.33 Another study shows that women who leave work to provide care may face
relatively low probabilities of returning to work.34
Earnings Gap
Another reason why women receive lower retired-worker benefits than men is that full-time
women workers earn about 80%-82% of the median weekly earnings of their male counterparts.35
In 2019, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median weekly earnings of
$821, or about 82% of the $1,007 median earned by their male counterparts. The women’s-to-

32 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP Public Policy Institute, Caregiving in the U.S. 2015, at
https://www.caregiving.org/caregiving2015/.
33 Van Houtven, Courtney Harold, Norma B. Coe, Meghan M. Skira, 2013, “The Effect of Informal Care on Work and
Wages,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 32(1):240—252. The study finds little effect of caregiving on working
men’s hours or wages. Fahle, Sean, and Kathleen M. McGarry, 2017, “Caregiving and Work: The Relationship
Between Labor Market Attachment and Parental Caregiving,” Michigan Retirement Research Center, Research Paper
No. 2017-356.
34 Skira, Meghan M., 2015, “Dynamic Wage and Employment Effects of Elder Parent Care,” International Economic
Review, vol. 56(1):63-93.
35 If the population were ranked from lowest to highest based on earnings level, the earnings level at the middle of the
distribution would be the median value.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

men’s earnings ratio was about 62% in 1979 and, after increasing gradually during the 1980s and
1990s, has ranged between 80% and 82% since 2004.36
In 2020, the earnings gap between women and men varied among age groups (see Table 3).
Among full-time workers, women aged 16-24 earned about 95% as much as men; women aged
25-34 earned about 90% as much as men; and women aged 55-64 earned about 78% as much as
men.
Over time, the earnings gap between women and men has narrowed for most age groups. For
example, among full-time workers aged 25-34, the women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio increased
from 68% in 1979 to 90% in 2020. For workers aged 35-44, the earnings ratio increased from
58% in 1979 to 81% in 2020. Similarly, for workers aged 45-54, the earnings ratio increased from
57% in 1979 to 78% in 2020. Part of the earnings gap can be attributed to differences between
men’s and women’s years of education, full-time work experience, and occupations.37
Comparing the annual earnings of women and men may understate differences in total earnings
across longer periods. Using a 15-year time frame (1983-1998), one study found that women in
the prime working years of 26 to 59 had total earnings that were 38% of what prime-age men
earned, in total, over the same 15-year period.38 Another study found that women born between
1955 and 1959 who worked full-time, year-round each year would have an average lifetime loss
of $531,500 by age 59, compared with men.39
Table 3. Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s Earnings, 1979 and 2020
Women’s Earnings as a
Women's Earnings as a
Age
Percentage of Men's, 1979
Percentage of Men's, 2020
Total, 16 years and older
62.3%
82.3%
Total, 16 to 24 years
78.6%
94.7%
Total, 25 years and older
62.1%
81.2%
25 to 34 years
67.5%
89.5%
35 to 44 years
58.3%
81.2%
45 to 54 years
56.8%
77.5%
55 to 64 years
60.6%
77.8%
65 years and older
77.6%
80.4%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2020, September 2021, Table 12.
Note: Ratios are for men and women who are ful -time wage and salary earners with median earnings.
As women enter the work force in greater numbers, more women will qualify for Social Security
benefits based on their own work records, instead of a spousal benefit that is equal to 50% of the
husband’s PIA. However, retired-worker and disabled-worker benefits for women continue to be

36 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, April 2021, Table 16.
37 See CRS In Focus IF10414, The Gender Earnings Gap.
38 Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap, Institute for
Women’s Policy Research, 2004, https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/iwpr-export/publications/
C355.pdf.
39 Institute for Women’s Policy Research, The Status of Women in the States: 2015: Employment & Earnings, March
2015, http://statusofwomendata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PDF-of-final-Employment-Earnings-chapter-9-4-
15.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

lower than those for men on average for a variety of reasons, as discussed above. Consequently,
after the death of a husband, the survivor’s benefit, which is equal to 100% of the husband’s PIA,
will continue to play an important role in the financial well-being of widows.
Equity Issues
Although Social Security provides essential income support to nonworking spouses and widows,
the current-law spousal benefit structure can lead to a variety of incongruous benefit patterns that
have been documented in the literature.40 For example, a woman who was never employed but is
married to a man with high Social Security–covered wages may receive a Social Security spousal
benefit that is higher than the retirement benefit received by a single woman, or a woman who
was married less than 10 years, who worked a full career in a low-wage job.
The current system provides proportionately more benefits relative to payroll-tax contributions to
one-earner couples (which predominated when Social Security was created in the 1930s) than to
single persons or to couples with two earners, on average. As a result, the current system can lead
to situations in which Social Security provides unequal benefits to one-earner and two-earner
couples with the same total household lifetime earnings. Putting this in a different perspective,
some two-earner couples may have to contribute significantly more to Social Security to receive
the same retirement and spousal benefits that the system provides to a one-earner couple with
identical total household earnings. As women’s share of household income has increased, and
also as women have increasingly become heads of families, these anomalies could become more
relevant.
Table 4 illustrates the disparate treatment of one-earner and two-earner couples with examples
developed by the American Academy of Actuaries. In the table, a one-earner couple with
household earnings of $50,000 is compared with two different two-earner couples. The second
couple in the comparison is a two-earner couple with the same total household earnings ($50,000)
as the one-earner couple, with the earnings evenly split between the two spouses (each spouse
earns $25,000). The third couple in the comparison is a two-earner couple in which one spouse
earns $50,000 (the same as the primary earner in the one-earner couple) and the other spouse
earns half that amount, or $25,000, for total household earnings of $75,000.
Table 4. Benefits for Three Couples with Different Earnings Splits
Between Husband and Wife, 2017
Second Couple: Two
First Couple: One
Earners with Total
Third Couple: Two
Earner with
Household Earnings of
Earners with Earnings

Earnings of $50,000
$50,000 Split Evenly
of $50,000 and $25,000
Total household earnings
$50,000
$50,000
$75,000
Spouse A earns
$50,000
$25,000
$50,000
Spouse B earns
$0
$25,000
$25,000
Annual Social Security
payrol taxes (employee
$3,100
$3,100
$4,650
share only)

40 See, for example, Christopher R. Tamborini and Kevin Whitman, “Women, Marriage and Social Security Benefits
Revisited,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 67, no. 4 (2007). See also Alicia H. Munnell, Geoffrey Sanzenbacher, and
Mauricio Soto, Working Wives Reduce Social Security Replacement Rates, Center for Retirement Research, no. 7-15,
October 2007.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 17 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Second Couple: Two
First Couple: One
Earners with Total
Third Couple: Two
Earner with
Household Earnings of
Earners with Earnings

Earnings of $50,000
$50,000 Split Evenly
of $50,000 and $25,000
Total monthly benefit paid
$2,655 total
$2,240 total
$2,890 total
to couple at retirement
(equals $1,770 worker
(equals $1,120 worker
(equals $1,770 worker
benefit to Spouse A
benefit to Spouse A and
benefit to Spouse A and
and $885 spousal
$1,120 worker benefit to
$1,120 worker benefit to
benefit to Spouse B)
Spouse B)
Spouse B)
Total monthly benefit paid
$1,770
$1,120
$1,770
to survivor
Source: American Academy of Actuaries, Women and Social Security, Issue Brief, May 2017.
As the table illustrates, a one-earner couple may receive higher retirement and survivors benefits
than a two-earner couple with identical total household earnings. Specifically, the first couple
with one earner receives a total of $2,655 in monthly retirement benefits, compared with the
second couple with two earners, who receives a total of $2,240 in monthly retirement benefits.41
Similarly, the survivor of the one-earner couple receives $1,770 in monthly benefits (either as a
retired worker or as a surviving spouse). In comparison, the survivor of the two-earner couple
with identical total household earnings receives $1,120 in monthly benefits.
In the third couple shown in Table 4, both spouses work in Social Security–covered employment,
but in this example one spouse earns $50,000 annually and the other spouse earns $25,000. This
couple receives monthly benefits that are $235 higher than the monthly benefits received by the
one-earner couple ($2,890 compared with $2,655); however, this couple has earned much more
over time ($25,000 annually) and contributed commensurately more in Social Security payroll
taxes ($1,550 annually). The survivor benefit received by the third couple is identical to that
received by the one-earner couple. Thus, the current-law Social Security spousal benefit structure
requires some two-earner couples to make substantially higher contributions for similar benefit
levels. With higher earnings but similar benefits to the one-earner couple, the third couple’s
replacement rate of 46% (i.e., family total monthly benefits as a percentage of preretirement
earnings) is lower than that of the one-earner couple, which is 64%.42
After the death of one spouse, the disparity in benefits between one-earner and two-earner
couples may increase, as shown in the table. For the one-earner couple, the surviving spouse
receives a benefit equal to two-thirds of the couple’s combined benefit (for a reduction equal to
one-third of the couple’s combined benefit).43 For a two-earner couple with equal earnings (the

41 The internal real rate of return in this case is the discount rate, which equals the present value of expected payroll
taxes and the present value of expected benefits, and it is 4.40% for the one-earner couple and 3.93% for the two-earner
couple. The numbers are calculated by CRS using the methodology described in Nichols, Orlo, Michael Clingman and
Alice Wade, 2005, “Internal Real Rates of Return Under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers”, SSA Office
of the Chief Actuary, Actuarial Note Number 2004.5, available at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-
5.html#wp158362.
42 For further discussion of replacement rates among couples with different earnings histories, see Alicia H. Munnell,
Geoffrey Sanzenbacher, and Mauricio Soto, Working Wives Reduce Social Security Replacement Rates, Center for
Retirement Research, no. 7-15, Boston, MA, October 2007. The authors argue that wives’ entrance into the labor
market, and the ensuing rise in the ratio of wives’ earnings to husbands’ earnings, has lowered the replacement rate
received by average-earning married couples from 50% of preretirement income to 45% over the past 40 years.
43 On a combined basis, the couple received 150% of the worker’s PIA. The surviving spouse receives 100% of the
worker’s PIA. This results in a reduction equal to one third of the couple’s combined benefit.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 10 link to page 27 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

second couple), the surviving spouse receives a benefit equal to one-half of the couple’s
combined benefit.
Further, the surviving spouse in the first couple (the one-earner couple) receives a larger monthly
benefit than the survivor of the second couple (a two-earner couple with earnings evenly split)—
$1,770 compared with $1,120—although both couples paid the same amount of Social Security
payroll tax contributions. Similarly, compared with the one-earner couple, the surviving spouse in
the third couple (a two-earner couple with unequal earnings and higher total earnings than the
one-earner couple) receives the same monthly benefit ($1,770) although the couple paid a higher
amount of Social Security payroll tax contributions. For both two-earner couples in these
examples, after the death of one spouse, the second earnings record does not result in the payment
of any additional benefits.44
When spousal and survivors benefits were first established, most households consisted of a single
earner—usually the husband—and a wife who cared for children and remained out of the paid
workforce. As a result, benefits for nonworking spouses were structured to be relatively generous.
Over the past six decades, women’s earnings have increased and the share of households who
have one earner has declined, and thus the share of women beneficiaries who received Social
Security benefits solely based on husband’s earnings record has decreased (see Figure 1).
In addition to inequities among couples with different work histories and earnings levels, the
current structure of Social Security auxiliary benefits creates inequities among the divorced.
Divorced spouses with 9½ years of marriage, for example, receive no Social Security spousal and
survivors benefits, whereas divorced spouses with 10 or more years of marriage may receive full
spousal and survivors benefits.
Other Program Design Considerations
The current structure of Social Security spousal and survivors benefits raises other considerations
for lawmakers with respect to potential policy changes.
 Social Security automatically provides pension rights to one or more eligible
divorced spouses, in contrast to private pensions. Further, the benefit payable to
the primary earner is not reduced for benefits paid to a current or one or more
former spouses, again in contrast to private pensions.
 Divorced spouses receive a higher benefit after the death of their former spouse
(the primary earner): benefits for a divorced spouse are equal to 50% of the
primary earner’s PIA, while benefits for a divorced surviving spouse are equal to
100% of the primary earner’s PIA. This can create volatility in the income of
divorced spouses.
 Widow(er)s who had high-earning spouses may face disincentives to marry a
lower-earning second husband (if remarriage occurs before the eligibility age for
widow[er]’s benefits).
In response to the adequacy, equity, and other program design issues described above,
policymakers and researchers have proposed a number of ways to restructure Social Security
auxiliary benefits. Some of these proposals are discussed in the following section.

44 American Academy of Actuaries, Women and Social Security, Issue Brief, May 2017. For a related discussion, see
the proposal entitled, “Survivor’s Benefit Increased to 75% of Couple’s Combined Benefit,” below.
Congressional Research Service

15

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Proposals for Restructuring Social Security Spousal
or Survivors Benefits
A number of proposals have been put forward to modify the current structure of Social Security
spousal and survivors benefits. These proposals have different potential consequences for benefit
levels of current, divorced, and surviving spouses; for the redistribution of benefits among
couples from different socioeconomic levels; for the eligibility of means-tested programs such as
Supplemental Security Income; and for work incentives.
Earnings Sharing
Earnings sharing has been suggested as a way to address the unequal treatment of one-earner
versus two-earner couples under current law. As noted above, Social Security often provides
higher benefits to one-earner couples than to two-earner couples with the same total household
earnings. In addition, earnings sharing has sometimes been suggested as a way to provide benefits
to divorced women whose marriages did not last long enough (at least 10 years) to allow them to
qualify for divorced spousal or survivors benefits. By definition, earnings sharing would not
affect never-married persons.
Under the most basic form of earnings sharing, spousal and survivors benefits would be
eliminated. Instead, for each year of marriage, a couple’s covered earnings would be added
together and divided evenly between the spouses. For years when an individual is not married, his
or her own earnings would be recorded. If a person has multiple marriages, the earnings sharing
would occur during each period of marriage. Both members of a couple would have individual
earnings records reflecting shared earnings as a member of the couple as well as any earnings
before or after the marriage. Social Security benefits would be computed separately for each
member of the couple, based on the individual earnings records and using the current-law benefit
formula. For couples who were married for the entire career of one or both members, both
members of the couple would receive identical benefits and the couple’s combined benefit would
be equal to twice that of either member of the couple. The two spouses would receive different
benefits, however, if either had earnings before or after the marriage.
Earnings sharing proposals would reduce benefits for the majority of individuals, relative to
current law, and in the absence of other benefit enhancements. For example, a 2009 Social
Security Administration (SSA) study (hereinafter, 2009 SSA Study)45 found that 61% of
individuals would receive average benefit reductions of about 17%. About 11% of individuals
would experience no change in benefits, and 28% would experience benefit increases averaging
about 10%. Among married couples, the benefit decrease under earnings sharing proposals would
be substantially larger among individuals in one-earner married couples than two-earner married
couples.46 This is mainly because the current system on average provides proportionately more

45 Howard M. Iams, Gayle L. Reznik, and Christopher R. Tamborini, “Earnings Sharing in Social Security: Projected
Impacts of Alternative Proposals Using the MINT Model,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 69, no. 1 (2009). SSA’s study
focuses on the impact of earnings sharing on benefits received by the population that will be aged 62 or older in 2030.
The net change in the lifetime benefit amount of each beneficiary or average beneficiary is not discussed in the study.
46 See also U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, “Report on Earnings
Sharing Implementation Study”, February 14, 1985; Congressional Budget Office, “Earnings Sharing Options for
Social Security System”, January 1986; and Melissa M. Favreault and C. Eugene Steuerle, Social Security Spouse and
Survivor Benefits for the Modern Family, The Urban Institute/The Retirement Security Project, Discussion Paper 07-
01, Washington, DC, March 2007, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 27 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

benefits relative to payroll-tax contributions to one-earner couples than to couples with two
earners, but under earnings sharing, couples with the same total lifetime earnings generally would
receive the same benefits regardless of their individual earnings profiles, all things being equal.
Studies have found that the largest benefit reductions under earnings sharing could affect widows
and divorced women. The 2009 SSA study found that about 93% of widows would experience an
average benefit reduction of 27% while 45% of divorced women would experience benefit
reductions averaging about 22%.47 A 2016 study found that 39% of divorced women and 62% of
widows would experience a median decrease in benefits of 6% and 14%, respectively.48
The decline in widow’s benefits results from eliminating the surviving spouse benefit under
current law and replacing it with earnings credits. The widow’s benefit under current law is equal
to 100% of the husband’s PIA, where the husband’s PIA is determined based on unshared
earnings. Although earnings sharing would increase the amount of earnings credited to the
surviving wife (assuming the husband was the higher earner), the benefit payable to the surviving
wife based on shared earnings would be lower than the current-law widow’s benefit. Another
study found that the gains experienced by divorced spouses and some married women under
earnings sharing would come largely at the expense of widowed men and women.49
Some earnings sharing proposals would mitigate these effects by providing enhanced benefits to
survivors or other targeted groups. For example, an “inheritance provision” could allow a
surviving spouse to count all (instead of half) of a deceased spouse’s earnings (or those of a
deceased former spouse) during each year of marriage, in addition to all of his or her own
earnings. An inheritance provision would protect some, though not all, surviving spouses. For
example, the 2009 SSA study found that 40% of widows would receive lower benefits relative to
current law under earnings sharing with an inheritance provision (compared with 93% without the
inheritance provision).
Alternatively, benefits for surviving spouses could be based on an amount equal to two-thirds of
the combined benefit the couple was receiving when both members of the couple were alive (see
“Survivor’s Benefit Increased to 75% of Couple’s Combined Benefit” below), or special
provisions could be targeted to surviving disabled spouses.50
Provisions to protect survivors from benefit reductions would reduce the amount of savings that
would otherwise be achieved through program changes. Similarly, provisions to increase benefits
for survivors relative to current law would increase program costs. A higher survivor benefit
could be self-financed by reducing, on an actuarially fair basis, the combined benefit the couple
receives while both members of the couple are alive.51

47 The 2009 SSA study also found that 96% of widowers in 2030 would experience an average benefit reduction of
20%.
48 Kenneth Couch, Gayle Reznik, and Christopher Tamborini, et al., “The Distributional Impact of Social Security
Policy Options: An Analysis of Divorced and Widowed Women,” Research on Aging, vol. 39, no. 1 (2016), pp. 135-
165. For the purposes of the study, a “benefit increase” is defined as a 1% or greater increase in the 2030 benefit
amount under the policy change, relative to current law.
49 Melissa M. Favreault and C. Eugene Steuerle, Social Security Spouse and Survivor Benefits for the Modern Family,
The Urban Institute/The Retirement Security Project, Discussion Paper 07-01, Washington, DC, March 2007, p. 19.
50 Congressional Budget Office, Earnings Sharing Options for the Social Security System, Washington, DC, January
1986.
51 Melissa M. Favreault and C. Eugene Steuerle, Social Security Spouse and Survivor Benefits for the Modern Family,
The Urban Institute/The Retirement Security Project, Discussion Paper 07-01, Washington, DC, March 2007.
Congressional Research Service

17

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Divorced Spouse Benefits
Under the current Social Security program, a divorced spouse must have been married to the
worker for at least 10 years to qualify for spousal and survivors benefits based on the worker’s
record, as discussed above. Benefits for divorced spouses are equal to 50% of the worker’s PIA;
benefits for divorced surviving spouses are equal to 100% of the worker’s PIA. One approach to
extend Social Security spousal and survivors benefits to more divorced spouses would be to lower
the 10-year marriage requirement (for example, to 5 or 7 years).52 Proposals to lower the length-
of-marriage requirement for divorced spouses would improve benefit adequacy for some,
although not all, divorced women.
One study53 estimated that lowering the marriage-duration requirement from 10 to 7 years would
increase benefits for about 8% of divorced women and 2% of widowed women aged 60 or older
in the year 2030. Lowering the marriage-duration requirement to 5 years (with a proportional
decrease to benefit amounts) would increase benefits for about 11% of all divorced women in the
year 2030. The study found that, among divorced women aged 60 and over who would receive
higher benefits as a result of lowering the marriage-duration requirement to 5 or 7 years, the
outcomes were moderately progressive in the sense that they channeled a greater share of benefit
increases to low-income and non-college-educated divorced women in old age. For example,
under a 7-year marriage-duration requirement, about 10% of divorced women in the lowest
retirement income quintile would receive a benefit increase compared with around 4% in the
highest quintile who would receive a benefit increase. Among divorced women who gain, women
in the lowest retirement income quintile would see a median benefit increase of 79%, compared
with a median increase of 25% among women in the highest quintile. An earlier study found a
similar result.54
Some researchers contend that the 50% benefit rate for divorced spouses (50% of the worker’s
PIA) is not sufficient to prevent many divorced spouses from falling into poverty.55 The 50%
benefit rate for spouses initially was established to supplement the benefit received by a one-
earner couple (i.e., in 1939, a spousal benefit was provided for a dependent wife to supplement
the benefit received by the worker).56 Some observers contend that it may not be sufficient for

52 For example, see Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary, “Provisions Affecting Family
Member Benefits,” D3, at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/familyMembers.html.
53 Kenneth Couch, Gayle Reznik, and Christopher Tamborini, et al., “The Distributional Impact of Social Security
Policy Options: An Analysis of Divorced and Widowed Women,” Research on Aging, vol. 39, no. 1 (2016), pp. 135-
165. For the purposes of the study, a “benefit increase” is defined as a 1% or greater increase in the 2030 benefit
amount under the policy change, relative to current law.
54 Christopher R. Tamborini and Kevin Whitman, “Lowering Social Security’s Duration-of-Marriage Requirement:
Distributional Effects for Future Female Retirees,” Journal of Women and Aging, vol. 22 (2010), pp. 184-203. For the
purposes of the study, a “benefit increase” is defined as a 1% or greater increase in the 2030 benefit amount under the
policy change, relative to current law. The study suggests that a large proportion of divorced female retirees in 2010
will have a retired-worker benefit (based on their own earnings histories) which exceeds the divorced-spouse benefit
(50% of the former spouse’s benefit), but which is less than the surviving divorced-spouse benefit (100% of the
deceased former spouse’s benefit). That is, much of the benefit increases in 2030 would accrue to divorced surviving
spouses who were receiving a retired-worker benefit while the former spouse was alive but became dually entitled upon
the death of the former spouse before 2030. (Because the study addresses benefits in the year 2030, it does not include
some divorced women who would receive higher benefits upon the death of a former spouse at a later date.)
55 As discussed in David A. Weaver, “The Economic Well-Being of Social Security Beneficiaries, With an Emphasis
on Divorced Beneficiaries,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 60, no. 4 (1997), p. 11.
56 See Arthur J. Altmeyer, “Dependents’ Allowances in Social Insurance,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 4 (April
1947), pp. 3-6, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v10n4/.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 13 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

persons (divorced spouses) who may be living alone. As described above, about 12.5% of
divorced women and 11.6% of divorced men who were aged 65 and older and received Social
Security benefits have incomes below the poverty line, compared with 3.3% and 2.6% of married
women and men respectively in 2019 (see Figure 2).
Increased Benefits for the Oldest Old
Another type of benefit modification would increase benefits for the oldest old (for example,
beneficiaries aged 80 or older, or after 20 years of benefit receipt) by a specified percentage such
as 5%. One rationale for this proposal is that beneficiaries tend to exhaust their personal savings
and other assets over time, becoming more reliant on Social Security at advanced ages. Another
rationale is that, after the age of 60, Social Security retirement benefits do not keep pace with
rising living standards. In particular, the formula for computing a worker’s initial retirement
benefit is indexed to national average wage growth through the age of 60 and then to price
inflation (the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W) starting at
the age of 62. Once a beneficiary begins receiving benefits, his or her benefits increase each year
with price inflation (the annual cost-of-living adjustment, based on the CPI-W) so that the initial
benefit amount is effectively fixed in real terms. Some argue that the CPI-W is an inaccurate
measure of price inflation that seniors face.57
According to one study, a 5% bump-up in benefits at the age of 80 would result in a slight decline
in poverty rates among widows and nonmarried retired-worker beneficiaries aged 80 or older
(declines of 3 percentage points and 4 percentage points, respectively). The same study found that
this option is not targeted toward low-income beneficiaries: less than 30% of the additional
benefits would accrue to beneficiaries in the bottom quintile of the income distribution.58 Another
SSA study finds that a 5% benefit increase in the individual’s primary insurance amount for
beneficiaries aged 85 or older in 2030 would decrease the projected poverty rate from 1.5% to
1.2%.59
Alternatively, a benefit increase for the oldest old could be limited to beneficiaries who receive a
below-poverty-level benefit. One proposal along these lines would provide a benefit to persons

57 For example, see Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt, “Conference Report on H.R. 1451, Older Americans Act
Amendments of 1987,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 133, part 23 (November 17, 1987), p. 32119. The
President’s 2014 budget proposed basing the Social Security Cost-of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) on the chained CPI-
U (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers) instead of on the CPI-W, and the proposal would increase benefits
for older beneficiaries (retired workers aged 76 and older and disabled workers after 14 years of benefit receipt).
(Source: Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, page 46, at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-
2014-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2014-BUD.pdf.) Because the chained CPI-U tends to grow more slowly than the CPI-W, the
provision of benefit increase for older beneficiaries would more than offset the expected effects of the lower COLA.
Similarly proposals were made in 2010. See The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The
Moment of Truth, Washington, DC, December 2010, http://momentoftruthproject.org/report. See also Bipartisan Policy
Center, Restoring America’s Future, Washington, DC, November 2010, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/restoring-
americas-future/.
58 Sharmila Choudhury, Michael V. Leonesio, and Kelvin R. Utendorf, et al., Analysis of Social Security Proposals
Intended to Help Women: Preliminary Results, Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and
Statistics, ORES Working Paper No. 88, Washington, DC, January 2001, p. 21.
59 Whitman, Kevin, and Dave Shoffner, October 2013, “The Projected Effects of Social Security Benefit Increase
Options for Older Beneficiaries,” Social Security Administration, Policy Brief No. 2013-01. The relatively low poverty
rate (1.5%) under scheduled benefits reflects that wealthier individuals are more likely to live to older ages and the
projected decline in poverty due to real wage grow.
Congressional Research Service

19

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

aged 82 or older that would be prorated based on the number of years the person contributed to
Social Security.60
Other proposals would link the Social Security COLA to the Experimental Consumer Price Index
for Americans Aged 62 and Older (CPI-E), which grows faster than the CPI-W on average, and is
projected to increase Social Security benefits.61 Although the changes were targeted to all Social
Security beneficiaries, those who received COLAs under the new policy for many years, such as
the very old or people who had been disabled for a long period, tend to receive the largest benefit
increase.62
Minimum Benefit for Low Earners
Social Security already has a “special minimum” benefit designed to help workers with long
careers at low wages.63 A worker is awarded the special minimum benefit only if it exceeds the
worker’s regular benefit. The value of the special minimum benefit, which is indexed to prices, is
rising more slowly than the value of the regular Social Security benefit, which is indexed to
wages. As a result, the number of beneficiaries who receive the special minimum benefit under
current law declines each year, and the provision was estimated to have no effect on retired
workers turning 62 years old in 2022 or later.64
Some observers argue that a carefully designed minimum benefit has the potential to reduce
poverty rates among older women, including divorced and never-married women, more
efficiently than existing spousal and survivors benefits.65 Minimum benefit proposals are aimed at
improving the adequacy of benefits, in comparison with some other proposals that address issues
of equity among individuals and couples with different marital statuses.
Most minimum benefit proposals would require the worker to have between 30 and 40 years of
Social Security–covered earnings to qualify for a minimum benefit at the poverty line or
somewhat above it (for example, 120% of the poverty line).66 These work tenure requirements are
intended to address, although not resolve, concerns that providing a minimum benefit could
discourage work effort. Setting eligibility for a full minimum benefit at 30 to 40 years of covered
earnings would allow many workers to take several years out of the labor force to care for
children (or other family members) and still receive a higher benefit than they would have

60 John Turner, “Longevity Insurance: Strengthening Social Security at Advanced Ages” in Strengthening Social
Security for Vulnerable Groups, ed. National Academy of Social Insurance (Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 45-48. The
full report is available at http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/
Strengthening_Social_Security_for_Vulnerable_Groups.pdf.
61 The CPI_E grows faster than the CPI-W, on average, because a larger portion of spending by the elderly goes to
toward health care expenditures and other items whose prices tend to rise more rapidly. For legislative proposals, see
Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary, “Provisions Affecting Cost-of-Living Adjustment,” A6,
at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/cola.html.
62 For more information on the chained CPI-U and CPI-E, see CRS Report R43363, Alternative Inflation Measures for
the Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA).
63 For more information on the Special Minimum Benefit, see CRS Report R43615, Social Security: Minimum Benefits.
64 See Craig A. Feinstein, Diminishing Effect of the Special Minimum PIA, Social Security Administration, Actuarial
Note No. 162, April 2021, at http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note162.pdf.
65 Melissa M. Favreault, Gordon B.T. Mermin, and C. Eugene Steuerle, Minimum Benefits in Social Security, AARP
Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, August 2006, p. 13. See also Pamela Herd, “Ensuring a Minimum: Social
Security Reform and Women,” The Gerontologist, vol. 45, no. 1 (2005), pp. 12-25.
66 For examples, see Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, “Provisions Affecting Level of
Monthly Benefits,” B5, at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/benefitlevel.html#B5.
Congressional Research Service

20

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

qualified for in the absence of a minimum benefit. Arguably, intermittent work histories play a
greater role than long-term low earnings in leading to below-poverty-level benefits among
women.67 Therefore, proposals for a minimum benefit based on a specified number of years of
covered employment could be combined with modified spousal benefits or with a caregiver credit
to balance recognition of longer work effort with recognition of the requirements of caregiving.68
To maintain the minimum benefit at a constant ratio to average living standards, some proposals
would link the minimum benefit to wage growth instead of setting the minimum benefit equal to a
specified percentage of the poverty line.69 The official poverty line is indexed to price growth,
whereas living standards rise with increases in wages and productivity. Wage growth generally
outpaces price growth.70
For a discussion of policy options that would restructure the Special Minimum Benefit, see CRS
Report R46589, Social Security Special Minimum Benefit: Policy Options. If a new minimum
benefit is provided, it would be necessary to address interactions between Social Security benefits
and eligibility for Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and other means-tested programs for
low-income individuals.
Caregiver Credits and Drop-out Years for Caregiving
Women are more likely than men to take career breaks to care for a child or other relative, as
discussed above. The Social Security retired-worker benefit is based on the average of a worker’s
35 highest years of covered earnings. If a worker has fewer than 35 years of earnings, for
example due to years of unpaid caregiving, years of no earnings are entered as zeros in the
computation of career-average earnings. Years of zero earnings lower the worker’s career-average
earnings, resulting in a lower initial monthly benefit.
One approach is to replace years of low or zero earnings with a caregiver credit equal to a
specified dollar amount.71 Some proposals would provide the same fixed credit to all eligible
persons.72 Other proposals would link the amount of the credit to foregone earnings, so that
higher earners would receive higher credits. The latter proposal would require that the caregiver
have been in the paid labor force previously. Some proposals to base benefits on caregiving,
rather than on marriage, would eliminate the current spousal benefit.
A second approach is to drop years of caregiving, up to a fixed maximum number of years, from
the benefit computation period. This approach could be implemented either by dropping years of

67 Melissa M. Favreault, A New Minimum Benefit for Low Lifetime Earners, Urban Institute: Retirement Policy
Program, Washington, DC, March 2009.
68 For examples, see Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, “Provisions Affecting Level of
Monthly Benefits,” Option B5.3, 5.5-5.7 and 5.11, at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/
benefitlevel.html#B5.
69 For examples, see Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, “Provisions Affecting Level of
Monthly Benefits,” B5, at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/benefitlevel.html#B5.
70 While projected growth in wages over time is expected to help reduce poverty among the elderly in the future
(because initial monthly Social Security benefits are indexed to average wage growth), this may be offset by benefit
reductions for future beneficiaries to address Social Security’s projected long-range financial imbalance.
71 For example, see Social Security Caregiver Credit Act of 2017 (S. 1255, 115th Congress).
72 See, for example, National Council of Women’s Organizations and Center for Community Change, Expanding
Social Security Benefits for Financially Vulnerable Populations, October 30, 2013, https://iwpr.org/publications/
expanding-social-security-benefits-for-financially-vulnerable-populations/. See also U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Social Security: Options to Protect Benefits for Vulnerable Groups When Addressing Program Solvency, GAO-
10-101R, December 7, 2009, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-101R.
Congressional Research Service

21

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

zero earnings or by dropping years of low earnings.73 The proposal to drop years of zero earnings
(rather than low earnings) would require a person to leave the workforce completely. This could
be problematic for many women, making the proposal less likely to reach as many women as a
caregiver credit. Allowing a parent to drop up to 5 years of zero (or low) earnings for caring for a
child at home would cause the parent’s AIME to be calculated based on the highest 30 years of
earnings, rather than the highest 35 years of earnings (the benefit computation periods would be
reduced from 35 years to 30 years). This change in the benefit computation would result in higher
initial monthly benefits for these workers (and higher benefits for family members who receive
benefits based on their work records).
The Social Security Disability Insurance program allows up to three “drop-out” years for
caregiving.74 Policies to credit years of caregiving in the provision of public pension benefits have
been implemented in other countries in a variety of ways. In making such a provision, one
question to consider is whether the credit should be available only to parents who have stopped
working completely or also to parents who continue to work part-time or full-time. Another
question to consider is whether to provide credits only for the care of young children or also for
the care of other immediate family members such as an aging parent. For example, Canada
excludes years of caring for children under the age of 7 from the averaging period in the pension
calculation and from the contributory period under its earnings-related scheme, while Germany
provides one pension point (equal to a year’s contributions at the national average earnings) for
three years per child, which can be taken by either the employed or nonemployed parent, or
shared between parents (there are also credits for working while children are under the age of
10).75
Other recent proposals, however, would count additional years of earnings (more than 35 years)
in the Social Security benefit computation. For example, some proposals would increase the
averaging period from 35 to 38 years.76 These proposals are aimed at helping improve Social
Security’s projected long-range financial position and at encouraging people to work longer. Such
proposals generally would affect women disproportionately.
A criticism of proposals to drop or credit years of caregiving is that they may be of most benefit
to higher-wage households that can afford to forego one spouse’s earnings over a period of
several years. Lower-wage spouses, and single working mothers, may not be in a position to stop
working for any period of time. In addition, a practical issue involves ascertaining that years out
of the workforce are actually spent caring for children or other family members.

73 The 1979 Advisory Council on Social Security recommended offering drop-out years scaled to the length of service,
with a maximum of 6 drop-out years (as reported in: U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Summary of
Recommendations and Surveys on Social Security and Pension Policies, committee print, 96th Cong., October 1980).
The National Commission on Social Security in 1981 proposed that parents be able to credit up to 10 years of child
care for children under age 6 to be counted toward qualifying for the special minimum benefit (see National
Commission on Social Security, Final Report: Social Security in America’s Future, Washington, DC, March 1981).
74 For more information, see CRS Report R43370, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI): Becoming Insured,
Calculating Benefit Payments, and the Effect of Dropout Year Provisions. The childcare dropout year provision was
authorized by the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-265) and became effective in July 1981.
Between 2000 and 2011, SSA credited dropout years to 1,108 disabled beneficiaries representing about 0.15% of all
SSDI beneficiaries during that period (source: CRS communication with SSA, December 2011).
75 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Pensions at a Glance, 2015, pp. 226 and 262.
76 See, for example, 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Report vol. 1, Findings and Recommendations,
Washington, DC, January 1997, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 17 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Survivor’s Benefit Increased to 75% of Couple’s Combined Benefit
Under current law, an aged surviving spouse receives the higher of his or her own retired-worker
benefit and 100% of the deceased spouse’s PIA. This leads to a reduction in benefits compared
with the combined benefit the couple was receiving when both members of the couple were alive.
The reduction ranges from one-third of the combined benefit for a one-earner couple to one-half
of the combined benefit for some two-earner couples.77 However, there is not always a
corresponding reduction in household expenses for the surviving member of the couple. Some
contend that 75% of the income previously shared by the couple more closely approximates the
income needed by the surviving spouse to maintain his or her standard of living.78
One frequently mentioned proposal would increase the surviving spouse’s benefit to the higher of
(1) the deceased spouse’s benefit, (2) the surviving spouse’s own benefit, and (3) 75% of the
couple’s combined monthly benefit when both spouses were alive.79 The couple’s combined
monthly benefit when both spouses were alive would be the sum of (1) the higher-earner’s benefit
and (2) the higher of the lower-earner’s worker benefit and spousal benefit. Some proposals for a
75% survivor benefit would target the provision to lower-income households by capping the
survivor benefit, for example, at the benefit amount received by the average retired-worker
beneficiary.80
A 75% minimum survivor benefit would increase benefits for many surviving spouses, both in
dollar terms and as a replacement rate for the combined benefit received by the couple when both
spouses were alive. For a one-earner couple, the benefit for the surviving spouse would increase
from 100% to 112% of the worker’s benefit (112% = 75% of 150% of the worker’s benefit that
the couple received when both spouses were alive). For a two-earner couple with similar earnings
histories, the surviving spouse’s benefit would increase from roughly 50% of the couple’s
combined benefit when both spouses were alive (under current law, the surviving spouse receives
the benefit received by the higher-earning spouse while he or she was alive) to 75% of the
couple’s combined benefit when both spouses were alive.
A 75% minimum survivor benefit provision would “reward” the second income of a two-earner
couple and improve equity between one-earner and two-earner couples. Under current law, upon
the death of either spouse, the earnings record of the lower-earning spouse does not result in the
payment of any additional benefits (i.e., in addition to the benefits payable on the earnings record

77 See the discussion under “Equity Issues.”
78 American Academy of Actuaries, Social Security Reform: Changes to the Benefit Formula and Taxation of Benefits,
Issue Brief, Washington, DC, October 2006, p. 7. See also 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Report vol.
1, Findings and Recommendations, Washington, DC, January 1997, p. 19.
79 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Report vol. 1, Findings and Recommendations, Washington, DC,
January 1997, p. 19. See also Joan Entmacher, “Strengthening Social Security Benefits for Widow(er)s: The 75 Percent
Combined Worker Benefit Alternative,” in Strengthening Social Security for Vulnerable Groups, ed. National
Academy of Social Insurance (Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 23-26, available at http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/
research/Strengthening_Social_Security_for_Vulnerable_Groups.pdf; and Bipartisan Policy Center, Securing Our
Financial Future: Report of the Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings, Washington, DC, June
2016, p. 97, available at https://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BPC-Retirement-Security-
Report.pdf.
80 President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth
for All Americans, Washington, DC, December 21, 2001, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/csss/reports/Final_report.pdfm,
models 2 and 3; Peter A. Diamond and Peter R. Orszag, Saving Social Security: A Balanced Approach (Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), p. 105; and Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary,
“Provisions Affecting Family Member Benefits,” D4, at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/
familyMembers.html.
Congressional Research Service

23

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

of the higher-earning spouse). Stated another way, the earnings record of the lower-earning
spouse effectively “disappears” with the death of either spouse.
Because a 75% survivor benefit would increase costs to the Social Security system, some have
proposed financing it through a gradual reduction in the spousal benefit from 50% to 33% of the
primary earner’s benefit, while both spouses are alive.81 For a one-earner couple, the couple’s
combined benefit would be reduced from 150% to 133% of the worker’s benefit. This is broadly
consistent with the structure of private annuities, where the annuity payout is lower to adjust for a
longer expected payout period. As a result, more dually entitled spouses would likely qualify for a
retirement benefit based on their own work record only, because more dually entitled spouses
would likely have a retired-worker benefit of their own that is equal to at least 33% (rather than
50%) of the higher-earning spouse’s retired-worker benefit.
Reducing a one-earner couple’s combined monthly benefit to 133% of the worker’s benefit, as a
way to finance a 75% survivor benefit, could be problematic for low-income couples. Effectively,
the increased survivor benefit would help the survivors of both one-earner and two-earner
couples, but it would be financed by reducing the combined benefits of one-earner couples from
150% to 133% of the worker’s benefit. In addition, unless this proposal were modified for
divorced spouses, it would also reduce the spousal benefits received by divorced spouses from
50% to 33% of the primary earner’s benefit. After the death of the primary earner, benefits for a
divorced spouse would jump to 100% of the primary earner’s benefit, creating income volatility
unless this outcome is addressed for divorced spouses.
Although the 75% survivor benefit option could increase benefits for vulnerable groups such as
aged widows, it would not address the needs of other vulnerable groups, such as individuals who
were never married or who divorced before reaching 10 years of marriage. In addition, a 75%
survivor benefit option would provide somewhat more additional benefits to higher-income
beneficiaries than to lower-income beneficiaries. To address this outcome, as noted above, some
proposals would cap the 75% survivor benefit at the average retired-worker benefit.
Conclusion
Although more women have qualified for Social Security benefits based on their own earning
records in recent decades, Social Security auxiliary benefits continue to play a crucial role in
improving income security for older women, as well as for young surviving spouses and children
of deceased workers. Some policymakers and researchers, however, have expressed concerns
about the current structure of Social Security auxiliary benefits on both equity and adequacy
grounds. For example, the current structure can lead to situations in which a one-earner couple
receives higher retirement and survivors benefits than a two-earner couple with identical total
household earnings. In addition, auxiliary benefits do not reach certain groups, such as persons
who divorced before 10 years of marriage or mothers who never married.
Some proposals have been suggested to increase Social Security benefits to certain, but not all,
vulnerable groups. For example, an enhanced widow(er)’s benefit would provide income support
to many elderly women and men, but it would not help those who divorced before 10 years of
marriage or who never married. Similarly, a caregiver credit for workers who stay at home to care
for young children would increase benefits for never-married and divorced women, but it would
not help those without children, whether married or unmarried.

81 Henry J. Aaron and Robert D. Reischauer, Countdown to Reform: The Great Social Security Debate (New York: The
Century Foundation, 2001), pp. 102-106.
Congressional Research Service

24

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

The consideration of potential changes to Social Security spousal and survivors benefits involves
balancing improvements in benefit equity, for example, between one-earner and two-earner
couples, with improvements in benefit adequacy for persons who experience relatively higher
poverty rates, such as never-married men and women. In addition, the policy discussion about
auxiliary benefits may involve balancing benefit increases for spouses and survivors, divorced
spouses, or never-married persons with other potential program changes to offset the higher
program costs in light of the Social Security system’s projected long-range financial outlook.82

82 For additional reading, see Social Security Modernization: Options to Address Solvency and Benefit Adequacy,
Report of the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, S.Rept. 111-187, 111th Congress, Second Session,
May 13, 2010.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 30 link to page 30
Appendix A. Major Changes in Social Security Auxiliary Benefits
Amendment
Type of Benefit
Amendment
Type of Benefit
Retired Workers
Dependents of Disabled Workers
1935
Retired worker aged 65 and older
1958
Same as dependents of retired-worker recipient
1956
Retired woman aged 62-64
Survivors

1961
Retired man aged 62-64

Widowed Mother

1939
Widowed mother any age caring for eligible child
Disabled Workers

1956
Disabled worker aged 50-64

Widow
1960
Disabled worker under age 65
1939
Widow aged 65 and older

1956
Widow aged 62-64
Dependents of Retired Workers
1965
Widow aged 60-61

Wife
1965
Divorced widow aged 60 and older
1939
Wife aged 65 and older
1967
Disabled widow aged 50-59
1950
Wife under age 65 caring for eligible child

1956
Wife aged 62-64

Widower

1950
Dependent widower aged 65 and older

Child
1961
Dependent widower aged 62-64
1939
Child under 18
1967
Disabled dependent widower aged 50-61
1956
Disabled child aged 18 and older
1972
Widower aged 60-61
1965
Ful -time student aged 18-21

1981
Student category eliminated except for high school

Widowed Father

students under age 19
1975a
Widowed father caring for eligible child

Husband

Child
1950
Husband aged 65 and older
1939
Child under age 18
1961
Husband aged 62-64
1956
Disabled child aged 18 and older
1978a
Husband under age 65 caring for eligible child
1965
Ful -time student aged 18-21

1981
Student category eliminated except for high school

Divorced Wife

students under age 19
1965
Divorced wife age 62 and older

Parent

Divorced Husband
1939
Dependent parent aged 65 and older
1976a
Divorced husband aged 62 and older
1956
Dependent female parent aged 62-64

1961
Dependent male parent aged 62-64
Source: CRS Report RL30565, Social Security: Summary of Major Changes in the Cash Benefits Program, May 18, 2000 (out of print but available on request).
a. Effective date: based on court decisions, not changes in the law. In 1983, the law was changed to reflect the court decisions.
CRS-26

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Appendix B. Summary of Possible Adjustments to
Social Security Spousal and Widow(er)’s Benefits
Under Current Law
Social Security benefits for spouses and widow(er)s are based on a percentage of the worker’s
primary insurance amount (PIA), with various adjustments for age at entitlement and other
factors. The following section describes some of the adjustments that apply to benefits for
spouses and widow(er)s.
Age-Related Benefit Adjustment for Spouses
Spousal benefits (including those for divorced spouses) are reduced when the spouse claims
benefits before full retirement age (FRA) to take into account the longer expected period of
benefit receipt (assuming the individual lives to average life expectancy).83 A spouse who claims
benefits at the age of 62 (the earliest eligibility age for retirement benefits) may receive a benefit
that is as little as 32.5% of the worker’s PIA.84
Age-Related Benefit Adjustments for Widow(er)s
The earliest age a widow(er) can claim benefits is age 60. If a widow or widower (including
divorced and disabled widow(er)s) claims survivors benefits before FRA,85 his or her monthly
benefit is reduced by a maximum of 28.5%86 to take into account the longer expected period of
benefit receipt (assuming he or she lives to average life expectancy).

83 Spousal benefits are reduced by 25/36 of 1% (or 0.0069) for each month of entitlement before FRA, up to 36 months,
and by five-twelfths of 1% (or 0.0042) for each month of entitlement before FRA in excess of 36 months. The
reduction is applied to the base spousal benefit, which is 50% of the worker’s PIA. The spousal benefit is not reduced
for entitlement before FRA if the spouse is caring for a qualifying child.
84 For example, if the worker’s PIA is $1,000, the spousal benefit payable at the spouse’s FRA is 50% of this amount,
or $500. If the spouse claims benefits at age 62 and his or her FRA is 67, the spousal benefit is reduced by 35%, from
$500 to $325 per month. (The percent reduction for entitlement to benefits five years before FRA is found as the sum
of (25/36) * 36 months plus (5/12) * 24 months, for a total reduction of 35%.) The spouse’s benefit of $325 is equal to
32.5% of the worker’s PIA of $1,000. The following link at the Social Security Administration’s website allows users
to see how timing the receipt of spousal benefits can affect benefit amounts: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/
spouse.html.
85 The FRA is increasing gradually from age 65 to age 67. While the FRA for retired workers and spouses will reach
age 67 for persons born in 1960 or later, it will reach age 67 for widow(er)s born in 1962 or later. The Social Security
Administration provides FRAs for widow(er)s based on year of birth, plus examples of reductions for early benefit
receipt, available at https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/survivorchartred.html.
86 Survivors benefits are reduced for each month of entitlement before FRA by a fraction derived by dividing 28.5%
(the maximum reduction) by the number of possible months of early retirement, which is the number of months
between age 60 and the person’s FRA. For example, a person whose FRA is 66 could claim benefits at age 60 and
potentially receive benefits for up to 72 months before FRA. The reduction for each month before FRA is therefore
28.5% ÷ 72 = 0.00396. As a result of this methodology, the fractions involved in reducing the widow(er)’s benefit for
entitlement before FRA vary depending on the date of birth and the FRA associated with that birthdate. Survivors
benefits paid from ages 50 to 59 based on a disability are not further reduced. The maximum reduction of 28.5% and
the procedure for finding reduction amounts for widow(er)s who retire between age 60 and FRA are described in Social
Security Administration, Handbook, section 724, available at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/
handbook.07/handbook-0724.html.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 9 link to page 33 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

In addition, survivors benefits may be affected by the deceased worker’s decision to claim
benefits before FRA. If the deceased worker claimed benefits before FRA (and therefore was
receiving a reduced benefit) and the widow(er) claims survivors benefits at FRA, the widow(er)’s
benefit is reduced under the widow(er)’s limit provision. Under the widow(er)’s limit provision,
which is intended to prevent the widow(er)’s benefit from exceeding the deceased worker’s
retirement benefit, the widow(er)’s benefit is limited to (1) the benefit the worker would be
receiving if he or she were still alive, or (2) 82.5% of the worker’s PIA, whichever is higher.87
Benefit Adjustments Based on Other Factors
Benefits for spouses and widow(er)s may be subject to other reductions, in addition to those
based on entitlement before FRA. For example, under the dual entitlement rule, a Social Security
spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is reduced or fully offset if the person also receives a Social
Security retired-worker or disabled-worker benefit (see “Dually Entitled Beneficiaries” above).
Similarly, under the government pension offset (GPO), a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s
benefit is reduced or fully offset if the person also receives a pension based on his or her own
employment in certain federal, state, or local government positions that are not covered by Social
Security.88 In some cases, a spousal or widow(er)’s benefit may be reduced to bring the total
amount of benefits payable to family members based on the worker’s record within the maximum
family benefit amount.89
Under the Social Security retirement earnings test (RET), auxiliary benefits may be reduced if the
auxiliary beneficiary is below the FRA and has earnings above specified dollar thresholds. Also,
under the RET, benefits paid to spouses may be reduced if the benefits are based on the record of
a worker beneficiary who is affected by the RET (excluding benefits paid to divorced spouses
who have been divorced for at least two years).
Table B-1 shows the percentage of a worker’s PIA on which various categories of spousal and
widow(er)’s benefits are based. It also shows the age at which benefits are first payable on a
reduced basis (the eligibility age) and the maximum reduction to benefits claimed before FRA
relative to the worker’s PIA.

87 For more information, see David A. Weaver, The Widow(er)’s Limit Provision of Social Security, Social Security
Administration, Office of Policy, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Working Paper Series Number 92,
June 2001, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp92.pdf. If the worker died before attaining
FRA and he or she had benefits withheld under the retirement earnings test (RET), for purposes of determining the
limit on the widow(er)’s benefit, the worker’s benefit is recomputed and increased at the time of the worker’s death to
take into account months for which the worker’s benefits were partially or fully withheld under the RET. For more
information on the RET and how it affects benefits for survivors, see CRS Report R41242, Social Security Retirement
Earnings Test: How Earnings Affect Benefits.
88 See CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO).
89 Benefits for a divorced spouse, a surviving divorced spouse or a disabled surviving divorced spouse are not reduced
for the family maximum. Benefits for other auxiliaries and survivors are reduced for the family maximum not taking
into account the divorced beneficiary. Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (POMS),
Section RS 00615.682 (Family Benefits Where a Divorced Spouse or a Surviving Divorced Spouse is Entitled),
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615682.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 34 link to page 31 link to page 34 link to page 31 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Table B-1. Social Security Spousal and Widow(er)’s Benefits
Basic Benefit Amount
Minimum Possible Benefit,
Before Any
Expressed as a Percent of the
Basis for Entitlement
Eligibility Age
Adjustments
Worker’s PIAa
Spouse
Age 62, or
50% of worker’s PIA
32.5% of the worker’s PIA
Any age if caring for the child
(The figure of 32.5% is found as fol ows.
of a retired or disabled worker.
The spousal benefit is 50% of the
The child must be under the
worker’s PIA. A spouse who claims
age of 16 or disabled, and the
benefits at age 62 and has an FRA of 67
child must be entitled to
would have his or her spousal benefit
benefits.
reduced by 35%, as described in
footnote 84. Mathematically, the
calculation is (1-.35)*0.50 of the retired
worker’s benefit= 0.325. )
Divorced Spouse
Age 62
50% of worker’s PIA
32.5% of worker’s PIA
(The divorced individual
Must be unmarried
(The reduction to spousal benefits for a
must have been married to
Note: A divorced spouse who
divorced spouse who claims benefits
the worker for at least 10
is under the age of 62 is not
before FRA is identical to the reduction
years before the divorce
eligible for spousal benefits
for a married or separated spouse.)
became final.)
even if he/she is caring for the
child of a retired or disabled
worker.
Widowed Mothers and
Surviving spouse of any age
75% of deceased worker’s
No reduction based on age at
Fathers
who is caring for the deceased
PIA
entitlement
worker’s child. The child must
Mother’s and father’s benefits end if the
be under the age of 16 or
beneficiary becomes entitled to a
disabled, and the child must be
widow(er)’s benefit.
entitled to benefits.
Must be unmarried
Must not be entitled to
widow(er)’s benefits
Note: In the case of a surviving
divorced parent, the child must
be his or her natural or legally
adopted child. The 10-year
marriage requirement that
applies to divorced spouses
under other circumstances
does not apply.
Aged Widow(er) &
Age 60
100% of deceased worker’s 71.5% of deceased worker’s PIA
Divorced Widow(er)
Must be unmarried (unless the
PIAb
(As described in footnote 86, the
(The divorced individual
marriage occurred after
maximum reduction to the survivor
must have been married to
attainment of age 60)
benefit as a result of early entitlement is
the worker for at least 10
28.5%. The figure of 71.5% is found as
years before the divorce
(1-.285) * 100% of the deceased
became final.)
worker’s benefit. See also “widow(er)’s
limit provision,” below.)
Congressional Research Service

29

link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 35 Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

Basic Benefit Amount
Minimum Possible Benefit,
Before Any
Expressed as a Percent of the
Basis for Entitlement
Eligibility Age
Adjustments
Worker’s PIAa
Disabled Widow(er) &
At least age 50 (ages 50-59)
100% of deceased worker’s 71.5% of worker’s PIA
Divorced Disabled
Must be unmarried (unless the
PIA
Disabled widow(er)s and divorced
Widow(er)
marriage occurred after
disabled widow(er)s ages 50-59 receive
(The divorced individual
attainment of age 50)
the same rate of reduction set for
must have been married to
The qualifying disability must
widow(er)s at age 60 (28.5% of the
the worker for at least 10
have occurred
worker’s PIA), regardless of their age at
years before the divorce
the time of entitlement.
became final.)
(1) before or within seven
years of the worker’s death;

(2) within seven years of having
been previously entitled to
benefits on the worker’s
record as a widow(er) with a
child in his or her care; or
(3) within seven years of having
been previously entitled to
benefits as a disabled
widow(er) that ended because
the qualifying disability ended
(whichever is later).d
Widow(er)’s Limit
As noted above, widow(er)’s benefits are reduced if a widow(er) claims benefits before FRA, with a
Provisione
maximum age-related reduction equal to 28.5% of the deceased worker’s PIA.
If a widow(er) claims benefits at FRA, his or her benefits are reduced if the deceased worker (on whose
record the widow(er)’s benefit is based) claimed benefits before FRA and therefore was receiving a
reduced benefit. The reduction is based on the widow(er)’s limit provision.
Under this provision, the widow(er)’s benefit is limited to the higher of:
(1) the benefit the worker would be receiving if he or she were stil alive, and
(2) 82.5% of the deceased worker’s PIA.
Stated another way, under the widow(er)’s limit provision, the maximum reduction is 17.5% of the
deceased worker’s PIA (i.e., no less than 82.5% of the deceased worker’s PIA is payable).
The widow(er)’s limit provision is intended to prevent the widow(er)’s benefit from exceeding the
deceased worker’s retirement benefit.
Other Reductions
(1) Dual Entitlement Rule: a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is reduced or ful y offset if the
person also receives a Social Security retired-worker or disabled-worker benefit.
(2) Government Pension Offset: a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is reduced or ful y offset
if the person also receives a pension based on his or her own employment in certain federal, state or
local government positions that are not covered by Social Security.
(3) Retirement Earnings Test: auxiliary benefits may be reduced if the auxiliary beneficiary is below the ful
FRA and has earnings above specified dol ar thresholds. Also, benefits paid to spouses may be reduced
if the benefits are based on the record of a worker beneficiary who is affected by the RET (excluding
benefits paid to divorced spouses who have been divorced for at least two years).
Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Handbook, Sections 418, 420 and 724, http://www.ssa.gov/
OP_Home/handbook/handbook.html.
a. The maximum reduction shown in this column reflects two steps: (1) computation of the spouse or
widow(er) benefit as the applicable percentage (for example, 50% or 100%) of the retired or disabled
worker’s PIA and (2) application to the spousal or widow(er) benefit of the maximum reduction for early
entitlement, assuming the spouse or widow(er) claims benefits at the earliest possible age (ages 62 and 60,
respectively). For widowed mothers and fathers who have a qualified child in care, there is no reduction for
entitlement before the ful retirement age.
b. A worker’s claiming age affects the widow(er) benefit. If a worker is entitled (or who would have been
entitled) to an increase (or subject to being increased) in their benefit amount due to claiming benefits after
Congressional Research Service

30

Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors

c. ful retirement age, their benefits are increased at death to take into account the delayed retirement credits
from claiming benefits after ful retirement age, thereby increasing the widow(er) benefit.
d. Benefits for disabled widow(er)s beginning at age 50 were enacted in 1967 when workers aged 50-59
needed up to seven years of covered employment to qualify for disability benefits based on their own work
record.
e. If the worker died before reaching FRA and he or she had benefits ful y or partially withheld for one or
more months under the Social Security retirement earnings test (RET), for purposes of determining the
limit on the widow(er)’s benefit, the deceased worker’s benefit is recomputed and increased (at the time of
his or her death) to take into account months for which benefits were withheld under the RET. For more
information, see CRS Report R41242, Social Security Retirement Earnings Test: How Earnings Affect Benefits.

Author Information

Zhe Li

Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
The original report was co-authored by CRS Specialist Dawn Nuschler and former CRS analyst Alison
Shelton. Former CRS analyst Wayne Liou made additional contributions.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R41479 · VERSION 19 · UPDATED
31

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Sep. 21, 2021

HTML · PDF

Feb. 6, 2019

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Sep. 18, 2017

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Jan. 10, 2012