Losing Survivor Benefits Upon Remarriage
A reasonable if perverse policy.
Natalie Oliverio, founder of Military Talent Partners, argues “Military widows shouldn’t face a penalty for remarrying.”
Under federal law, military widows lose their family’s survivor benefits if they remarry before age 55. The result is a trade-off few civilians ever confront: Either maintain the financial support tied to a spouse’s sacrifice, or risk losing it to move forward. But as Congress considers the bipartisan Love Lives On Act, it has an opportunity to correct a policy that no longer reflects how military families live or what they need after loss.
The existing rule is rooted in the Survivor Benefit Plan, which provides ongoing financial support to spouses of deceased service members. When the plan was designed, lawmakers assumed that remarriage would replace that support, reflecting a model in which one spouse worked and the other stayed home. But today, 54 percent of military households are dual-income. Surviving spouses now often raise children while managing careers shaped by years of relocation and interruption. They must rebuild financial stability without the local support networks that many civilian families rely on after a loss. Remarriage does not resolve those pressures. Rather, it can compound them.
[…]
Supporters of the existing rule argue that it prevents overlapping benefits and reflects a change in financial dependency after remarriage. That logic assumes a new marriage replaces what was lost. For many surviving spouses, it does not. The long-term effects of military life — including frequent moves, disrupted careers and delayed earning potential — continue to shape widowed spouses’ financial realities.
I’m dubious of much of Oliverio’s argument. The military offers considerably better “support networks” than most civilians enjoy. The disrupted careers stop being disrupted. And others face the loss of federal survivor benefits upon remarriage. Notably, surviving spouses lose eligibility for their late partner’s Social Security benefits if they remarry before age 71.
Still, the policy creates perverse incentives. Ordinarily, we would want people, especially those with small children, to remarry. Making doing so economically disadvantageous is, well, odd.
At the same time, it’s an incredibly generous policy. Because most military members are quite young, the benefits could last half a century or more. And it doesn’t apply only to those who died in combat. Those who die in automobile accidents or even by suicide leave behind the benefit.
Further, it’s rooted in the days when the servicemember, almost always a man, was likely the sole income earner or at least the primary one. Nowadays, the dependent* spouse almost always works. Providing a lifetime benefit to replace the lost income of a deceased spouse after remarrriage is rather odd.
“Those who die in automobile accidents or even by suicide leave behind the benefit.”
Having a hard time with the “even” in that sentence.
I’m guessing there will be an uptick in suicide among some of the sailors in seemingly infinite deployments in support of the Iran attack, or some of the soldiers who were injured or saw their buddies killed in unprotected bases in the Persian Gulf area. I’d consider those combat-related deaths.
By comparison, most post divorce support payment (alimony) obligations end as a matter of law when the supported ex marries or cohabitates. Child support is different.
I think that if it is a death occurring during a war it should be a lifetime benefit. If during peace time then they lose it when they remarry. Our deaths during war have not been that numerous and I think we have strong obligations. AS a compromise I would be willing to have it income tested.
Steve
@steve222: I oppose means testing as a general principle — it creates a set of haves and have-nots and a whole host of perverse incentives. The means testing of a lot of anti-poverty benefits creates a set of financial cliffs that can effectively trap a person in poverty, since they can’t afford to make the first $N over some arbitrary limit.
Also, this is basically life insurance for service members. Life insurance isn’t means tested is it? And it doesn’t go away when the survivor remarries, does it?
But, I oppose fixing this particular issue. Not without tacking on something else — codifying Obergefell seems like an appropriate add-on, as it’s all about making it possible for people to marry the people they love. So, that.
Otherwise… fuck it, let military spouses starve or whatever. Sucks to be them, but we no longer really live in a society where people help each other without some reciprocation.
Ol’ Doc Joyner opines:
Are suicide rates higher in the active military? Conventional wisdom is that it is higher in veteran communities, and I would be inclined to say that it is an occupational related risk, and that benefits should apply. People treat mental health issues entirely different from physical health issues, but they really aren’t that different.
@mistermix: The Iraq War ended in 2011 and the Afghanistan War was already at a very small footprint when it ended in 2021. Most of today’s servicemembers have not seen combat.
@Gustopher: Servicemembers already get dirt cheap life insurance, although it’s capped at $500,000. There are also separate benefits for those killed in combat. And nobody is proposing to end survivor benefits, just continuing the forever policy of ending them upon remarriage.