My bf's mother died on the highway during returning from a work related meeting in another town. She was hit by a semi which hit a moose and flipped crashing into her work vehicle and killing her instantly. The semi was also obviously a company vehicle. It's a total wrongful death but no benefits are entitled to my bf or his sister as they both were not dependent children. She did not have a spouse. It seems wrong to me that all the money she paid over the years does not go to the surviving children. She was 60 and planning for retirement in less than a year. Is there nothing they can do for loosing their only family "rock"? She was the glue and central figure of the whole family. How does the government justify monies payed over decades to Cpp and social security not benefiting family members if they are not specifically a dependent of a certain age (under 19) and possibly older if attending college /university or disabled?? How does the government reach into a person's pocket for the purpose of benefit to that person later in life and just literally STEAL it if that person does not survive to retirement? I get that there is a pot it goes to for others but absolutely nothing to family if they are not within their unfair eligibility requirements.. Not even a one time partial payment. That is just wrong.
We do have systems that do pay survivor benefits to designated persons regardless of their ages. They are called life insurance policies.
Yes, correct, a pyramid scheme. Which is MASSIVELY illegal in every jurisdiction - except when it is practised by governments.
This has been going on for almost a century, now. Surprise is right, we should expect to be the generation left holding the empty bag.
Sorry about the accident.
Was his mother on SS when she died? At 60 and employed FT I would think not so I guess my question to the OP is why her BF thinks he is entitled to anything. His mom wasn’t retired yet.
Our social security system would easily collapse if benefits were paid to adult children on the passing of their parents. It would be Unsustainable.
The SS payments she may have received on retirement will be used to provide SS to other people who are alive and need the money. That’s ok with me. But to continue to pay out benefits to immediate family that are adults and can work, then no, I wouldn’t be in favor of that.
CPP pays a small death benefit of about $2500.00. Depending on which province the accident happened in, there could be an insurance payout, it would not be great, especially if she had already made it known she was retiring in less than a year. Otherwise it could amount to a portion of her income to age 65.
The other thing to think about is that Mum did not pay the full amount into CPP, her employer paid 1/2 of the premiums. There is no stealing happening, just as if she had lived to 100 and collected CPP for 40 years, she would have taken out much more than she ever contributed. Would you call that theft?
I was married for 26 years. If my ex dies before me I will receive 1/2 of the benefit he was receiving at the time of his death. His new wife is already receiving social security based on her own earnings and those of her deceased husband. She is 15 years older than my ex and has been drawing SS for the entire time she and my ex have been married.
As someone pointed out, even if you have not paid into SS, you will get some money. My mother never worked and receives about 500.00 a month.
My question is about the fact that you said that the mother was 60 and going to retire in less than a year. That is too young to receive benefits from SS, so she must have had a pension or other account she was paying into that would have enabled her to retire early. You mentioned CPP. I don’t know what that is. Is it a pension? If she were paying into a pension, she should have beneficiaries named, and those people would receive the money that she paid into it. At least that is the way it is done in my state. My children are the beneficiaries of any unused money from my pension, as well as my life insurance, and bank accounts, but not SS.
The government takes money from everyone who is able to pay in order to provide basic securities for everyone who is not able to pay. You can look on it as creeping socialism, which it kind of is, in the barest sense of socialism; or you can look on it as mutual insurance, which it definitely is, and which being rooted in enlightened self-interest is a respectable aspect of capitalist society. What it certainly is NOT is a savings scheme, whereby a person pays into it in the expectation that s/he or her/his heirs will recoup part or all of their contribution.
If the heirs want a wrongful death benefit, they should sue the driver who killed the mother, and the company who employed him/her.
Someone could also ask why the "government" enacted the recent tax legislation, and the answer would be blend of politics, majority domination, and more politics.
Fairness, equity, and justice are often subverted in favor of political domination.