The Aug. 6 headline, “Social Security no longer a great deal,” should be an eye-opener to all working-class people. The graph clearly displays one of the main reasons for Social Security’s shortfalls: One-earner couples (usually high income) are grabbing the lion’s share of the benefits compared to all others. When a spouse earns enough to afford to keep another spouse [home], that person should be paying not only his/her 6 percent into the Social Security system, but an additional 12 percent to cover the unemployed spouse’s retirement pension. Why should all others be contributing to the (usually high) pension of one who could afford not to work? Some will argue that our society benefi ts from having a parent at home (many studies also show most children are more capable and independent without the smother-mother/helicopter parenting after age 5), but I have known countless women during my long working career who could not afford to take off more than a few months for childbirth before resuming work — and paying into Social Security again. Also, our country’s low birth rate does not refl ect a need to cover most non-contributing pensioners. With a quarter of couples and half of singles relying on Social Security for 90 percent of their income, there is a dire need to end the charity for non-working recipients, i.e., “Because of spousal benefits, most married couples with only one wage earner will continue to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes for the foreseeable future.” These recipients should be fully covered by the working spouse. You cannot stress enough the importance of the protection of Social Security benefits for children who have a working parent who dies, and for people who are too disabled to work. Private pensions and savings plans do not usually cover these people. And look at what happened to pensions and savings when the economy collapsed. We need a lifetime, infl ation-protected benefi t paid for by workers only and received by workers only (excepting above-mentioned children and disabled). Also, I believe the fi nancial industry is licking its lips, just hoping for Social Security to fail so they can make a killing selling retirement plans that won’t hold water in the long term.
We happen to know MANY MANY 'stay at home moms' who's household would be better financially if mom went out to work....HOWEVER...........they are sacrificing and being financially frugal to benefit their children and their family. And in some cases dad is working TWO jobs to fill the gap! And this is the majority....not the minority!! So this picture is being painted by too broad of a brush for sure!
BRAVO TO THE STAY AT HOME MOMS!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Letter regarding stay-at-home moms was wrong, insulting
Being a stay-at-home mother myself the Aug. 12 letter “Stay-at-home spouses milking Social Security” struck a chord with me. We no doubt live in a society where two working parents translates to a better way of life for our children — fi nancially speaking. However, sometimes one parent may choose to sacrifi ce a certain comfort of living to stay home and raise their children. This does not come without a big price. Not only do stay-at-home parents struggle with inadequacy when it comes to measuring up to career mothers (and also fathers to those stay-at-home dads), but to insinuate we are milking the system really adds insult to injury. For the most part, having one working parent is not an indefinite plan. Some go back to work or college when their children start kindergarten or wait until they are a little more self-suffi cient Many factors go into this decision, and I would ask anyone so quick to size up every last percentage of Social Security to look at the bigger picture. Child care is not always an affordable option for every family. One working spouse’s job might have a sporadic schedule, travel or changing shifts, making it next to impossible to work around or provide stability to a family with young children. Being a stay-athome parent is not always black and white in many households. One thing I am pretty certain of, is not many parents are basing this decision on the small Social Security perks, because our sacrifices simply do not outweigh those benefits, not by a long shot. There was a point in time when staying home was looked at as a job. I can say this from experience, few appreciate this “job” anymore. I would love to be able to afford a nicer car, namebrand clothing, and a bigger house, but my family sacrifices this to allow me to be home. To add more insult to injury, this article has the audacity to describe us stay-at-home parents as helicopter parents and smother-mothers. I fi nd this completely inaccurate and an immature description of what being a stayat-home parent entails. It is easy to throw jabs at a stay-athome parent. Let’s face it, we’re a dying breed. But to say we are abusing the Social Security system is not only inaccurate, but very offensive. My years at home are numbered and soon enough I will be putting into my own Social Security. In the future, when I cross paths with a stay-at-home parent, I will not be thinking about how they are “milking the system,” but appreciate the hard work they do on a daily basis, without payment or acknowledgment from society.
Logged
