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.
in my opinion , after the first few months -no . not if they are going to need the money and are relying on someone elses record . if they want to stay home that is their personal choice and they should not count on feeding off someone else's record if i had my way with ss and spousal . they would have to think long and hard before having lots of kids if they were not going to work . .. .again 70% of moms with children under 6 find a way to work full time so it is not like it is not done .
but you will have those who keep having kids , don't go to work , can't really afford to not work and then want to be compensated in retirement out of a fund that is funded by people who choose to work
all our kids work . none are stay at home moms and we have 5 grandkids with 3 of our own kids ..
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-24-2018 at 04:56 PM..
in my opinion , after the first few months -no . not if they are going to need the money and are relying on someone elses record . if they want to stay home that is their personal choice and they should not count on feeding off someone else's record so they better think long and hard before having lots of kids . .again 70% of moms with children under 6 find a way to work full time so it is not like it is not done .
all our kids work . none are stay at home moms and we have 5 grandkids with 3 of our own kids ..
I have friends who home school their kids.
The person they are "feeding" off is half their marital unit, key word being unit.
personal choice. they choose to do that . everything in life has consequences . no problem home schooling your kids instead of working . but again they should not be allowed to take money out of a fund that is for people who funded it working.
it would be different if you took a cut if you wanted your spouse or ex spouse to get a cut . people with pensions have to do that most of the time . they have to take less if they want it to go to a spouse if they die and for the most part ex spouses get nothing .
the system is quite unfair to singles . even when there are no kids this money gets paid out just because you are married and for no other reason while singles have no one else's record to bolster them . .
Social security is already means tested . Lower work records get proportionately a lot more money compared to what they put in than higher wage earners. So a spouse with a lower wage record is already getting a bigger piece of the pie than they really should . The spousal makes it even more inequitable compared to what higher earners pay in and get
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-24-2018 at 05:31 PM..
Even more interesting is that, after he dies, all three ex-wives are entitled to survivor benefits, so they would all three receive what he was receiving (with the usual caveats about filing ages and what they were entitled to on their own work records).
One of my in-laws had five ex-wives, all living, and all married to him for more than a decade. They all received his survivors' benefit after he died.
Again countries like France have a far more sane approach; divorced surviving spouses (and or widow(er) receive benefits divided by their number in proportion to length of marriage before death of beneficiary.
However as one has repeatedly stated, Social Security in this country is primarily an anti-poverty program for women, old, married or divorced.
It also reinforces the Protestant/conservative values that push women to remain to marry and leave the workforce. That is SS rewards SAHM (or these days simply stay at home spouses since now gays can marry), at cost of single and or the childless.
On average persons who never marry and or have children receive far less in SS benefits for their money than the attached and or those who breed.
Even with all the advances for women in this country over past fifty years certain groups of females have consistently fought against any change in status quo. Their arguments range from changing SS would "harm" women, to the obvious; they want women to marry, have children and remain like June Cleaver.
Even more interesting is that, after he dies, all three ex-wives are entitled to survivor benefits, so they would all three receive what he was receiving (with the usual caveats about filing ages and what they were entitled to on their own work records).
One of my in-laws had five ex-wives, all living, and all married to him for more than a decade. They all received his survivors' benefit after he died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatPeople
“five ex-wives, all living, and all married to him for more than a decadeâ€. Not sure if I should be impressed or horrified.
He was a real guy who lived to be over 90 and married his first bride before he was 20. He came from a culture of Southern Christians who would court, marry, have children, get divorced, and then go looking for the next spouse to do it all over again. He had 4 children with the first wife, 7 with the second wife, and 2 each with the next two wives. With the last wife, he had no children (she was past childbearing age, I think). Wife #5 was the widow. But they all collected SS on his work record.
To be fair, I don't know how any of the ex-wives would have survived without his SS. None of them worked outside the home; they just kept house and took care of him and the children. That's how he liked it.
Again countries like France have a far more sane approach; divorced surviving spouses (and or widow(er) receive benefits divided by their number in proportion to length of marriage before death of beneficiary.
However as one has repeatedly stated, Social Security in this country is primarily an anti-poverty program for women, old, married or divorced.
It also reinforces the Protestant/conservative values that push women to remain to marry and leave the workforce. That is SS rewards SAHM (or these days simply stay at home spouses since now gays can marry), at cost of single and or the childless.
On average persons who never marry and or have children receive far less in SS benefits for their money than the attached and or those who breed.
Even with all the advances for women in this country over past fifty years certain groups of females have consistently fought against any change in status quo. Their arguments range from changing SS would "harm" women, to the obvious; they want women to marry, have children and remain like June Cleaver.
banging out kids , marriage and buying homes have always been rewarded by our tax and ss systems vs renting and staying single , who get nothing extra in perks. not a fair and equitable system at all ...
He was a real guy who lived to be over 90 and married his first bride before he was 20. He came from a culture of Southern Christians who would court, marry, have children, get divorced, and then go looking for the next spouse to do it all over again. He had 4 children with the first wife, 7 with the second wife, and 2 each with the next two wives. With the last wife, he had no children (she was past childbearing age, I think). Wife #5 was the widow. But they all collected SS on his work record.
To be fair, I don't know how any of the ex-wives would have survived without his SS. None of them worked outside the home; they just kept house and took care of him and the children. That's how he liked it.
My ex and his family did their very best to pressure me into becoming a SAHM. I’m very glad I didn’t, even though it meant I had to do both jobs (care of the home and children/work outside the home)myself.
When SS was implemented, women had fewer choices for careers than they have now. The SS program needs to be refined to reflect societal changes.
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.
