Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm an avid reader of the Washington Post, but was seriously disappointed with this article. The language used does not present as an objective report and the article leaves out or significantly distorts the facts. This is not how the Post usually operates...
As for spousal benefits, IIRC, there is a proposal out there to eliminate spousal benefits. The basis for the proposal is NOT that a spouse did not contribute to the program, it is based on the observation that the married couple does not need the additional income. (I'll find and link to the cite later this evening.)
Your post is sexist . . .SS redistributes money to the remaining spouse . . .could be male or female . . . it could be the female who earned more during the lifetime . . .and it could be her husband or ex-husband who reaps her higher benefit.
Your post is sexist . . .SS redistributes money to the remaining spouse . . .could be male or female . . . it could be the female who earned more during the lifetime . . .and it could be her husband or ex-husband who reaps her higher benefit.
Did rou read the OP or is it just that your glass is perpetually half full? He linked an article he thought would be of interest and specifically said
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
The following is presented without personal comment:
You can read the article for a complete perspective and respond as appropriate.
Found the cite. Looks like I recalled incorrectly.
Senator Coburn proposed lowering the spousal benefit, not eliminating the spousal benefit.
"This proposal adjusts current law by reducing the spousal benefit by 1 percentage point annually (beginning with newly eligible spouses in 2012), until the percent reaches 33 percent."
It's easy to see the rationale for a spousal benefit back in the 1930's when Social Security was created by Congressional action - I can never remember if it was 1935 or 1937. At that time relatively few women worked for pay outside the home or farm. Normally the husband was the wage earner. So if the husband died first (and women do outlive men statistically) then the wife could be left totally destitute, hence the spousal benefit (which of course could also go the the husband, but that was relatively rare). Therefore, the spousal benefit provision indeed recognized the contribution of the wife to the home and/or farm, even if she had not contributed to the system.
Now things have become more complex since the massive entry of women into the American workforce beginning in the 1960's (the situation during World War II - Rosier the Riveter - having been temporary).
Seems perfectly natural to me. In general, life redistributes money from men to women (sorry, I couldn't resist).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
