Why are surviving children not entitled to social security monies after age of majority?

Well, I have an answer, but you may not like it. It's actuarial. The amount of workers' contributions and beneficiaries' payments are determined based on many factors, including the expectation that some people will live longer than their life expectancy and some people will die early, including so early that they never collect a dime. SS contributions aren't collected with the idea that everyone should get back what they paid in. Benefits for people who do collect are determined, to some extent, based on contributions made by people who collect less than their contributions, or never collect anything.

If the heirs want a wrongful death benefit, they should sue the driver who killed the mother, and the company who employed him/her.

BF needs to get a job. SS is designed to help someone out for a specified time. For a minor, that is the period until they finish school and are able to work and earn their own living.

I know a bit. My dad died when I was 13. From that point forward there were survivors benefits paid until 18 or until we graduated from college, presumably 23. If older than 18 and not in school, no longer dependants, there would not be benefits to pay. Have they talked to a personal injury attorney? I imagine there would be a question of standing that would have to be proven. There comes a certain age when we are all responsible for ourselves.

Surely there is an insurance claim to be made? Since both of the vehicles involved in this terribly unfortunate and tragic road accident were company-owned they must have been insured, no?

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.

Good morning, I am so sorry about your loss - and in such a tragic way. I am almost your BF’s mother’s age. Yes, you and all the posters are right. If something were to happen to me, everything that I have put into Social Security would die with me. That is the way it works. It is a safety net started I believe by FDR (correct me if I’m wrong) to insure that the elderly would not be left destitute when they were unable to work. In many cases it is not enough to live on, and it is expected that the individual will have some other retirement monies coming in. I believe that if a spouse dies, SS will pay the surviving spouse the higher amount. This is also true of a divorced couple who were married longer than a certain number of years. One of my colleagues was able to retire  because she found out that her deceased, never-remarried, ex-husband’s SS which was much higher than hers, would go to her when she reached retirement age. They had been married 20 years and divorced for 15. Nice surprise!
      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.

Benefit amounts are determined by salary earned, not amount contributed. As Glad wrote they are paid to age 18 or 23 and attending college. If all money was paid by an individual was paid to survivor the SS fund would run out of money for everyone. My ex's grandmother never worked. She started drawing at age 65 based on her husband. She lived drawing benefits until she was 107 far exceeding his contributions. SS was originally started to help with old age costs. Survivor benefits for minor children's and young widows was added a little later.

Minor children can only receive survivor benefits. I think the part about continues to College is not correct. That was changed in the 80s. Once you are 18 you become immacipated. CarlaCB said it very well. We pay into SS less than we will receive if we live to a ripe old age. At one time, we and our employers only paid 1 1/4% of our gross income. Over the years it increased to now, I think, 7+% ea. Like said, I would think the insurance company would have paid something out to the estate. When my Aunt was killed in an auto related accident my Uncle chose not to sue the driver involved butvthe auto insurance Co sent him a ck for 100k for her death anyway. If they received nothing I would question it.

Surprise - several answers. 1. Raise the level of earnings subject to the tax - after all you have to think about inflation. 2. And this is essential for all kinds of reasons - IMMIGRATION!!

Didn’t the OP say the mom was in a company car on the way home from a business meeting when the accident occurred? If so this may change things as the mom’s employment may be responsible to compensate the mother’s estate if this accident occurred while she was on the job. OP should ask her BF to get permission from mother’s employer to review their policy on accidental death while the person was on a job related function. If mother was “on the clock” while attending this meeting, her employer should be  responsible for compensation  

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.

Adult children don't receive survivor benefits because that is how the systems were set up. That was not part of their intention.

We do have systems that do pay survivor benefits to designated persons regardless of their ages. They are called life insurance policies.