Hi Doug, Thank you for explaining that ! All of my grandparents died during the 1960's, and none of them appear in the SSDI. (MA, 1960, 1961, 1967, and 2/1968) Betty (near Lowell, MA) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Urbanus" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [CASANFRA] reasons for not being listed in SSDI > Social Security paid nothing until 1940. The first survivor benefit > equaled 3x the "primary insurance amount" not to exceed $255 (or $85 > monthly). Eventually this was converted to what is called the "lumpsum > death" benefit that is now payable to only the surviving spouse. > > By now the chatter must convince everyone that it was not necessary to > have received benefits in order to be listed in the SSDI. Because the > master beneficiary record, as an electronic record, began in 1968, deaths > that occured prior to this date are rarely displayed on the SSDI. If > there is a pre-1968 record it means that a survivor applied for benefits > under that SSN after 1967. Any listing from 1968 on means either (1) the > person or a survivor drew benefits or (2) for a non-beneficiary the death > was reported to SSA. For years this meant usually a funeral director > report or someone who presented a death certificate. A > post-1967non-appearance (as suggested by the rootsweb site) likely means a > delay in the report (that is, the death certificate has not been > finalized), an incorrect name/SSN relative to the numident record (which > contains the application for an SSN and duplicate cards issued after the > orginal) or possibly the person did not have an SSN. There was no > requirement until the 1980s for a survivor or spouse to even have an SSN. > Until the 1990s there was no requirement that a dependent on a tax return > have an SSN/TIN. [Anyone notice that deceased minors seemingly never > appear]. Today just about everyone has an SSN. And today I'm sure with > the multiple electronic sources of death, it's rare that a deceased person > does not appear on the SSDI at least eventually. > > I don't recall mentioning that I worked for Social Security. So while I > may not know everything relative to this question, I can speculate > knowledgeably on just about every reason why someone is NOT on the SSDI. > > P.S. Death certificates establish death. Marriage and birth > certificates establish relationships. A death certificate would never > establish that someone was a daughter. > > [email protected] wrote: > I joined the list over 3 years ago in my quest to obtain information on > my uncle's marriage in San Francisco. He died in 1939 in Oregon which I > believe is where he went shortly after his wife died. They had a daughter > that I've been trying to locate but I've need his wifeâ?Ts maiden name, so > I could. Sadly his daughter could never receive any SSI since uncle Vic > was never listed on the death records for Social Security, in fact she > doesnâ?Tt even know he died. > My grandfather was next of kin and wasn't the nicest person, that's why > all of his children left TN. In fact when my grandmother died he never had > a cemetery marker placed on her grave [donâ?Tt think he paid for her > funeral]. I was very young and remember when gramps died and my dad & > uncles where all over the cemetery trying to locate her grave. > Gramps received a letter from the funeral home in Oregon [I have the > papers from the funeral home] that's how the family knew my uncle died in > Oregon. But gramps didnâ?Tt want to be responsible for the funeral bills > so he never replied. It doesnâ?Tt surprise me since he didnâ?Tt pay for > the funerals of 2 of his other wives or another son who died. Since he was > next of kin he was the one to notify Social Security and apply for any > benefits and etc. Since Social Security was never informed of Uncle > Vicâ?Ts death, there is no record. The funeral home back then could not > notify the Social Security administration and the state of Oregon didnâ?Tt > either. > Patti > > ************************** > Visit SFGenealogy.com! > http://www.sfgenealogy.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

re: the postscript about death certificates not establishng that someone is a daughter - that depends on the person filling out the death certificate. I have certs from some of my family members where it lists the name of the individual that provided/verified the decendants info and their relationship to the decendent (son, niece, etc.) I have found a lot of family information/linkages/living cousins by also tracing the person that provided information on my ancestor's d.c.'s. Christine. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [CASANFRA] reasons for not being listed in SSDI Hi Doug, Thank you for explaining that ! All of my grandparents died during the 1960's, and none of them appear in the SSDI. (MA, 1960, 1961, 1967, and 2/1968) Betty (near Lowell, MA) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Urbanus" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [CASANFRA] reasons for not being listed in SSDI > Social Security paid nothing until 1940. The first survivor benefit > equaled 3x the "primary insurance amount" not to exceed $255 (or $85 > monthly). Eventually this was converted to what is called the "lumpsum > death" benefit that is now payable to only the surviving spouse. > > By now the chatter must convince everyone that it was not necessary to > have received benefits in order to be listed in the SSDI. Because the > master beneficiary record, as an electronic record, began in 1968, deaths > that occured prior to this date are rarely displayed on the SSDI. If > there is a pre-1968 record it means that a survivor applied for benefits > under that SSN after 1967. Any listing from 1968 on means either (1) the > person or a survivor drew benefits or (2) for a non-beneficiary the death > was reported to SSA. For years this meant usually a funeral director > report or someone who presented a death certificate. A > post-1967non-appearance (as suggested by the rootsweb site) likely means a > delay in the report (that is, the death certificate has not been > finalized), an incorrect name/SSN relative to the numident record (which > contains the application for an SSN and duplicate cards issued after the > orginal) or possibly the person did not have an SSN. There was no > requirement until the 1980s for a survivor or spouse to even have an SSN. > Until the 1990s there was no requirement that a dependent on a tax return > have an SSN/TIN. [Anyone notice that deceased minors seemingly never > appear]. Today just about everyone has an SSN. And today I'm sure with > the multiple electronic sources of death, it's rare that a deceased person > does not appear on the SSDI at least eventually. > > I don't recall mentioning that I worked for Social Security. So while I > may not know everything relative to this question, I can speculate > knowledgeably on just about every reason why someone is NOT on the SSDI. > > P.S. Death certificates establish death. Marriage and birth > certificates establish relationships. A death certificate would never > establish that someone was a daughter. > > [email protected] wrote: > I joined the list over 3 years ago in my quest to obtain information on > my uncle's marriage in San Francisco. He died in 1939 in Oregon which I > believe is where he went shortly after his wife died. They had a daughter > that I've been trying to locate but I've need his wifeâ?Ts maiden name, so > I could. Sadly his daughter could never receive any SSI since uncle Vic > was never listed on the death records for Social Security, in fact she > doesnâ?Tt even know he died. > My grandfather was next of kin and wasn't the nicest person, that's why > all of his children left TN. In fact when my grandmother died he never had > a cemetery marker placed on her grave [donâ?Tt think he paid for her > funeral]. I was very young and remember when gramps died and my dad & > uncles where all over the cemetery trying to locate her grave. > Gramps received a letter from the funeral home in Oregon [I have the > papers from the funeral home] that's how the family knew my uncle died in > Oregon. But gramps didnâ?Tt want to be responsible for the funeral bills > so he never replied. It doesnâ?Tt surprise me since he didnâ?Tt pay for > the funerals of 2 of his other wives or another son who died. Since he was > next of kin he was the one to notify Social Security and apply for any > benefits and etc. Since Social Security was never informed of Uncle > Vicâ?Ts death, there is no record. The funeral home back then could not > notify the Social Security administration and the state of Oregon didnâ?Tt > either. > Patti > > ************************** > Visit SFGenealogy.com! > http://www.sfgenealogy.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ************************** Visit SFGenealogy.com! http://www.sfgenealogy.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message