The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Banking on Divorce

65 Comments

November 18, 2009 by Kathy McManus

Ron Bednar married his wife because, as he puts it, “I believe in the whole act of marriage, to declare that we are married in front of friends and family and God and all that.” 

Now he’s getting divorced, as his soon-to-be ex-wife explains, “In order to be able to eat.” 

Bednar, 64, and Mary McCurnin, 59, aren’t the first couple to get divorced because each can collect more government benefits single than married. But when their story appeared in The Huffington Post, it set off a debate about marriage versus money, and whether it’s ethical to end the former simply to increase the latter, while still staying together. 

Husband and wife say their vow of “Til death do us part” was torn asunder by health problems and medical bills, including her breast cancer and his intestinal bleeding, for which insurance covered only 10%. Her cancer’s return, plus heart surgery for him, set them on a path of repeat home refinancing, and now bankruptcy and divorce. “We literally live from week to week,” says McCurnin. “We got $300 in the bank.” 

Because her first husband is deceased, McCurnin is eligible for $1,200 a month in Social Security survivor’s benefits—if she divorces Bednar. “She could divorce him now to collect short-term benefits on her earlier husband,” says a Social Security spokesman, “and then at some later point after age 60 remarry him without it affecting her widow’s benefits.” 

“I agree that marriage is overrated and that if they want to game the system, it's fine for them to find the loopholes,” wrote one reader. “Game the system???” responded another. “Did you not read the part where they went broke trying to save their own lives?” 

“Marriage seems to be no more than a Govt Program,” another reader wrote. “If there's a benefit, marry. If there's no benefit, unmarry.” The situation has “nothing to do with marriage,” countered another. “This has to do with 2 people who did not plan for retirement, health care, or save during their 65 years. And now have found a loop hole for the Govt to cover them.” 

Tell us what you think: Is it ethical to divorce solely to collect government benefits? In this case, is the couple “gaming the system” or finding an alternate way to grow old together?

65 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• November 20, 2009 by William Draga

  This is how I look at the Marriage factor and US Government. My wife and I work professionally and earn a middle class main street American income. When we look at the taxation of the social security that we both pay in but due to our marriage can only get a return of 66% of our investment if any by the time we retire what would you do?We ask this question when you look around us and realize that our government's debt is almost 68% owned by other foreign entities (mainly China)and big bank bailouts and the phrase to big to fail, yes play the game. Our society does not support marriage unity and is not rewarded for being honest and raising a family. We just keep getting penalized for doing the right thing and not crossing the line of deception or integrity. Yes ,play the game .

  Reply

  • August 11, 2010 by Tammy Dillon

    I agree totally, there are times that in order to stay together and beable to eat and live you (we) must play the game. The game that the government itself made-up They are the ones responsible for this so called game in the fis place. I learned how to play and even as of now being 49 yrs old I'm still playing their GAME in order to survive. Also I have two children and a partner for 26 yrs

    Reply

  • February 10, 2011 by Janice Flores

    It looks like a no win game.

    Reply

    • November 2, 2011 by whynot

      Play it. Good people don't finish first. I am one of them. Play it to death! We keep giving money away to wars in the middle of nowhere and our kids can't get a job or pay for college or even start a family. The math of life does not add up anymore. It is financial anarchy. Example: my mother-in-law never worked half-an-hour in the country and got a maid paid by the government AND A PENSION AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AND MEDICARE. Did she deserve it just because she was old? No: she did not contribute to the fund, not even a penny. Am I going to have the same perks when my turn comes? Obviously not. I saw the story of a man that had to technically divorce his wife that got into a horrible car crash and have to spend the rest of her life under nursing care. He divorced her because they would receive more money to keep her alive if she was divorced. Play it, play it, play it!

• November 23, 2009 by ngan hang

  Oh very money

  Reply

• November 23, 2009 by chieuhado

  Do you think that ?

  Reply

  • February 10, 2011 by Janice Flores

    Health Care like any other business needs money.

    Reply

• November 23, 2009 by Ken Borucki

  What is the real role of government? In this country, government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". Should the role of those that govern be to make frivolous laws that protect small groups with special interests such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies, or should they work more deligently to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for the common person? I think the latter and as such people should not be penalized for illness or injury. This is the only first world nation that does not have universal health coverage. Yet, we the people are more than willing to pay exorbitant amounts of taxes to bail out banks and car companies. Unfortunately, in this country, millions of people die because they cannot afford to stay alive. So what is really the morally 'right thing to do'? I, for one, think that human life should be the first ultimate priority of government.

  Reply

• November 29, 2009 by Ron Foss

  Is it possible that we have evolved to the point where women are neither given nor taken in marriage or is this an antiquated idea? Why answer a question with a question? Because maybe it is relevant to what is happening around us. Change can be a shock to the system, but is that really a shock but more a confirmation of what is inevitable? Far too many questions than answers. When it comes right down to it being married is a noble idea that may have more to do with being able to afford it than just wanting to do the right thing. If we could all do the right thing without being penalized in any way than we would all be better off. But alas maybe the right thing is out of our reach finally and once and for all. Your friend Ron F.

  Reply

  • February 10, 2011 by Janice Flores

    Only you can answer how you have evolved.

    Reply

• November 29, 2009 by Jack Coupal

  When anyone plans their life to maximize benefits from any government - federal, state, local - she is simply gaming the system. It's an old American sport, growing more popular as the nation ages. People don't even feel guilty about it now. Could we plan for emergencies and bad times? Sure, but then we'd have to add to those savings our monthly payments on the Lexus. Our new motto is: "I'm getting mine!!"

  Reply

• November 30, 2009 by S Hokenson

  This is a crazy thing to say. But the more you play by the rules the more you get penalized.

  Reply

• November 30, 2009 by RRR

  Wow. I am really sadden by the whole question. How much lower will we sink or feel forced to sink in the name of survival? Morality, ethics, tradition, family values, and yes the "L" word-Love, have really taken a tough blow now a days. Is money the only thing worth living for, the only means of survival? I am married with four children and I don't know what kind of world I am bringing them up in. Wow.

  Reply

• December 2, 2009 by Kathleen Overton

  You're all correct. It's sad what has happened morally in this country that people marry and un-marry to get benefits. Social Security funds have been stolen by the government every year for decades so no wonder its funding is in danger. Granting Social Security benefits to those who are able-bodied but never worked to pay into the fund is another drain. I think to resolve the marriage/benefits problem, Social Security should give benefits for widows regardless of age, period. I was married 20 years and I darn well earned that money before he died. Jobs can no longer be assumed to be there from year to year so how can people plan for health insurance provided by an employer? Insurance is about $1,400 per person for 80% of what the company thinks should be charged. Surprise! You pay more than 20%. Doing the right thing defines your choices but no person can watch their child go without food or shelter without acting. And I don't mean they drive a Lexus. Just look at the lines for the food bank.

  Reply

  • February 25, 2010 by Linda Duckworth

    I WANT TO BE HEARD. MY HUSBAN PASSED ON THE FIRST OF THE YEAR 2007. WE WAS MARRIED 36 YEARS, I LOST MY HOME WE HAD FOR 11 YEARS. I DEPENED ON HIS INCOME AN NOW I DON'T HAVE IT. I WISH SOCIAL SECURTY GIVE WIDOW PENSION AT THAT TIME I AM BARLEY MAKING IT. MY HUSBAN WAS A VIETNAM VETRAN AN FOUGHT IN THAT WAR. AN I HAVE TO WAIT TILL I AM 60 TO GET HIS PENSION IT HAS BEEN HARD ON ME. I HAVE TO WAIT FOR 5 YEARS BEFOR I CAN RECIEVE THE WIDOW PENSION..

    Reply

    • August 17, 2011 by OliveOil

      Apparently you took advantage of the govnt school system in this country.

• December 4, 2009 by KR Phillips

  Respectfully regarding this comment: "It’s sad what has happened morally in this country that people marry and un-marry to get benefits." Benefits: Is there any other reason? I'm not suggesting that "money" is the only reason to make (or break) your word to another party, but doesn't every divorce amount to a change in benefits? He wants to be able to go out with his friends late at night. She wants a husband who works less. Or one who works more. He wants to sleep with someone else. She doesn't want to have to compromise. He wants to avoid apologizing... so he can keep his pride... and not have to forgive... It's pretty hard to criticize this couple when so many of us are made of the same stuff--just different shades of the same color. Meanwhile, I'd sure like to see someone offer to help this couple survive. Maybe let them move in, share a home, so these two people don't have to take such drastic measures to have enough income to afford shelter and food...? Yeah, let's be part of the solution.

  Reply

  • May 8, 2010 by dennis

    C'mon,think about everything you said and start over.Oranges and apples both fruits but definately not the same not even close.

    Reply

  • November 6, 2011 by Barb

    Wouldn't their plight have been solved by a National Healthcare Program? The dominoes would not have started to fall otherwise.

    Reply

• December 7, 2009 by Kelly Ray

  If a married couple of limited means is unable to make ends meet, perhaps the criteria of programs that deny them benefits should be examined, rather than the couple's moral character. Corporations do all kinds of things to hide money and allow individuals in the corporate relationship to benefit immensely while they still report no earnings at the end of the year. Why should a struggling couple of retirement age take so much guff for doing what they must do to survive in this upside down economy?

  Reply

  • August 11, 2011 by Teri Allen

    I agree why should you not get benifits, you are paying for every other country's benefits, through taxes. The U.S. helps EVERYONE but their own. GET WHAT YOU NEED to survive !!! The governmernt even allows businesses to get all they can get from you without breaking the law. If it isn't against the law for rich people why should it be against the law for people trying to eat food. It would be different if you were trying to buy a second or thrid home, like they do. They even get lifetime medical and retirement for serving 2 years in congress.

    Reply

• December 12, 2009 by richard lewis

  I remember when love was preceded by true friendship with a whole lot of respect for each other. If we really think about it just look at the kids today: $200 sneakers, pants that don't fit, a private TV, no practiced religion, education is preparation for income not knowledge,family life is reduced to eat alone when you can, less respect for parents and neighbors, sibling rivalry, you may add to the list---------but----they tell us we live in the best society----the one that has to intrude on smaller nations----and we are trying to introduce our way of life around the globe by hook, crook or force----social security is not the problem or solution ----cars, diamonds, gold, unnecessary large homes that require more energy than we can produce----I HOPE WE WAKE UP BEFORE IT GETS TO BE TOO LATE----gaming the system is just another reflection of who we are and where we are headed.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.