I've been a stay at home mom for the most part but have worked outside of the home here and there.

Back in 2000 I was diagnosed with two separate conditions, both that could have put me on SSD but I didn't think of going on it at that time.

I managed to work for 2 1/2 years until 1 of my conditions really got bad (heart) and nearly passing out in bathroom at work isn't the best thing to do, from 2009-2011. So I applied for SSD, was told how many credits I needed and I knew I had that many from the SS paper that is sent out. Imagine my surprise when I was told that most of my credits were expired for SSD but not for SS when I turn 67.

I doubt that with my problems I make it to 67. Even though I've been a dependent on my husband's paycheck and filed income tax with him for over 30 years that doesn't help me either.

The kicker? If he files and gets SSD, I'll get half of what he gets whether we're still married or not as long as I'm not remarried.

"Even if we're not married as long as I'm not remarried". Now how is that fair and why am I punished for staying home cooking, cleaning, raising kids and taking care of my family/home 24/7? If my husband didn't pay his taxes they'd come after ME also as long as my name was on his returns.

How crazy this can be.

Payroll taxes (FICA/OASDI) have always been the method of funding Social Security retirement and Social Security Disability and the person who goes to the job and gets the paycheck is the one who earns the right to Social Security benefits. Has been the policy since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 when Social Security began.

SSA used the term 'wage-earner' to describe who can get benefits. Now once the wage-earner is no longer working due to their own disability or their own attainment of retirement age or their death, then it can be possible for their dependents, including their elderly spouse (age 62, not age 67) or their minor children or their wife/husband taking care of their young children, to also get benefits because those dependents have also suffered a loss of support because the wage-earner can no longer earn a wage. Widows can get paid younger, age 60. Disabled widows can sometimes be paid at age 50. All of this entitlement is based on the loss of earning power by the person who was going to the job every day and earning the money. That is the crux, the underlying assumption, the basis for all Social Security benefits.

It is too bad that you didn't understand this when you were a SAHM. You might have chosen to work part-time every year, just to get your own credits. This is not a new story and it is too bad that some young adults don't know and don't bother to understand the taxes that they pay and why they pay them since it will catch up with them eventually, and then they are surprised, like you.

Paying income taxes on a joint tax return is totally different from paying payroll taxes (FICA/OASDI) on a paycheck. Income tax is also withheld from paychecks and is owed on rental income, interest income, dividends, etc. But FICA/OASDI taxes are ONLY withheld from paychecks from jobs or paid by a self-employed person with a business profit.

Social Security is a program that is funded by payroll taxes (FICA/OASDI) and no stay at home parent is working for an employer who pays them for the work they are doing. Expecting Social Security benefits from paying income taxes is like expecting your car insurance company to pay for the fire damage in your kitchen. FICA and income tax fund different programs like car insurance and homeowner's insurance pay for different losses.

Sorry you didn't understand this when you could have done something different. You are not being punished. You just didn't pay into the disability program enough years. Which really was your choice.

There is the Supplemental Security Income program that pays disabled people with limited income and assets, but your husband's money does affect whether or not you can get SSI and he may earn too much from his job.

I had problems with "credits" with SS as well. Evidently you have to work a number of quarters consecutlively in order to quality. I had health issues pop up, where I took a number of years off, then went back to work. The previous quarters are dropped, and you start over. NO is is not fair. It should be the cummulative number of quarters you work, I hope you get all the help you need. Retain a legal assistant or a lawyer to help you. They keep the case moving forward. ginnie

If THAT was the type of long term disability insurance that you wanted to purchase, you might have tried to obtain that kind of coverage from a private insurance company.

That type of long term disability insurance coverage has never been available from our government.

Well I have to comment here.

All of my work credits for retirement SS, were saved and used when I retired. Nothing was lost. I had some breaks over the past 40 yrs, but the credits remained anyway. Some years I worked part-time and some full time. Some not at all, but I had more than enough to apply fully for SS at the proper time.
I often worked full time for 3/4 of the year and took summers off to be with my family, and travel.

I didn't work the last 4 or so years, because of an injury. My husband still has income, so I just waited until I reached 66 which is the new retirement for baby boomers in my age group. There was no penalty for this.

I never applied for disability because we really didn't need that income. (leg injury and I had to stand to work).
So I do see that "credits" can be confusing to some. I had more than 40 credits for my work history BTW.

You are right, a private insurance would have been great. Unfortunatly, I was NOT accepted by any company for insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Even my parents tried to find a company they could afford for me. It was outside the relm of possibilities for me. That is what happens when you have a real medical issue young, and then can't get insurance. ginnie

Exactly.

Purchasing disability insurance when you have a pre existing condition that makes it difficult for one to work, really isn't a feasible option. Private companies, who could charge exorbitant rates, still don't want to write that policy. You can't blame the US government, who can't change the premium based on our medical histories, for not being able to offer disability insurance for the "uninsurable." It is NOT the government's fault that you couldn't work enough to take advantage of the disability insurance they offer.

they do its called SSI.

Sorry, I should have said, disability insurance "purchased by recently working the required amount of quarters" do differentiate SSDI (which I was referring to) from SSI

Ginnie gets SSI, but feels she is entitled to more.

I am glad I got SSI. However my beef is that I was not allowed any insurance at all in this country forcing me to this situation. People can't help getting sick at a young age. I worked 34 years, and paid into this system. It isn't entitlements, it is earned. ginnie