Should Social Security ignore marital status? Most Americans say yes

What does marriage mean? For many, it's more than a symbol of love — it's a financial choice that influences retirement benefits like Social Security. Yet, most Americans say it's time to rethink those policies.

A recent survey by Atticus, a law firm that specializes in Social Security disability, workers' comp and VA benefits, found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans (68%) believe Social Security benefits should be distributed equally to all individuals, irrespective of their marital status. 

Currently, Social Security ties benefits to marital status, offering spousal and survivor benefits to married individuals while single people rely solely on their own earnings record.

The report, which surveyed over 1,000 Americans across different generations and marital statuses, suggests a widespread desire for a more uniform approach to benefit allocation, diverging from the current system that considers marital status when determining payouts.

Support for this change was strongest among single Americans (74%) and Generation Z (72%), but remained relatively high even among baby boomers (61%), who were the least likely of any age group to agree.

READ MORE: Social Security warns of 23% benefit cut by 2034 without a fix

Advisors like Jay Zigmont, founder of Childfree Wealth in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, say that the financial implications of marriage have changed significantly since Social Security's current policies were put in place.

"Social security was created in a different time and place than we live in today. When it started, it was somewhat the norm to have one spouse who worked outside the house and the other did not," Zigmont said. "In the current world, marriage is changing — 32.1% of childless people will never marry (vs 2.5% of parents). The younger generations are looking at marriage differently, and it is now the norm that both partners work outside the house."

"Marriage used to be a key to financial success, where now it may not be. When my childfree clients ask about getting married, the only financial benefit for most is in being enrolled in their partner's healthcare. Social Security is just one of a variety of systems that have a 'marriage penalty,'" he added.

Tricia Rosen, founder of Access Financial Planning in Newburyport, Massachusetts, said that she has felt the impacts of that penalty firsthand.

READ MORE: For Gen Z, retirement feels out of reach. Can advisors bring it closer?

"I have a son with a disability, so we're going to very quickly hit the family cap," Rosen said. "So it's kind of like, my husband's a higher wage earner, but I paid into Social Security and I'm going to get no benefit from it, because we're going to hit the family cap."

Still, Rosen said the average household will not have three people claiming Social Security, making the odds that they hit the benefit cap quite low. In fact, Rosen said that none of her clients have run into any such marriage penalties with their Social Security benefits.

"A manufactured problem"

Among survey respondents, 1 in 4 said they considered Social Security benefits when deciding whether to get married. And 1 in 10 said it was a major factor in their decision. Rosen said she finds those findings hard to believe — and she's not alone.

"I think a lot of this is overdone to fit a narrative of a law firm that probably fights the federal government on SS benefits," said John Bell, founder of Free State Financial Planning in Highland, Maryland. "Color me skeptical."

Charles Kyle Harper, founder of Harper Financial Planning in West Columbia, South Carolina, said that he thinks the survey's findings are a "manufactured problem."

"I haven't had anyone express concern or frustration over the way Social Security benefits are structured for individuals versus married couples," Harper said. "The way the question is phrased could be leading as well, due to the connotation of the word equal. … Social Security is a pretty complicated system, and the average person surveyed may not understand how it works or the costs associated with it."

READ MORE: Vast majority of HSA savers skip the investing option

Still, Harper said in some cases, like those involving widow benefits, marriage can impose a significant penalty on someone's Social Security.

"I had a client whose spouse was the breadwinner of the household. She passed prematurely.  My client later became involved in a serious relationship," he said. "Marriage, however, has been postponed (until age 60) as a topic of conversation due to its impact on the widower benefits my client would receive."

Advisors say they have their own list of things they'd like to see changed with the way Social Security works, but eliminating marital status as a consideration isn't one of them. While eliminating marriage as a consideration could benefit retirees in some cases, it could have devastating consequences in others.

"Consider the spouse who stayed at home for 25 years, raising children, then worked for less than 10 years, likely in an entry-level position due to the long gap in employment history. She likely receives a spousal benefit based on her spouse's work history in retirement," Harper said. "Her spouse may have been able to pursue a more rewarding career due to her role as a homemaker. There is an argument that she provided a non-economic benefit to society. If her spouse passes, she collects a survivor benefit from her spouse's work history. If we eliminated marital status as a consideration, she would receive no benefit despite paying into the system for a period of time."