Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:23 pm
squinney and I have already quoted the upcoming response to this thread here.....I'll let you know if we were right.....
I don't know what he's driving at, but I have to confess that I do think there ought to be some consideration for, how should I say, a gender-based, non-income producing occupation. In other words, I think that women (or men, for that matter) who choose not to work outside the home in order to raise children should be entitled to more than just half (or whatever it is) of the husband's payout. I think it should be equal.
But I'd love to hear his expanded remarks because he just sounds silly there.
He certainly is an awful communicator but I don't think he's trying to lower benefits for Jews...if you know what I mean?
Certainly, women have gotten screwed the last 50 years because of what Duck said and because of the glass ceiling.
Sounds like a lot of nudge, nudge, wink, wink to me. But his real message is what? I have no idea...
So, what's the verdict? Women live longer, so men should get a higher return to compensate for less years of benefit?
This has got to be one of the stupidest ideas there are out there. The should be no consideration based on anything onther then you paid into the system or you didn't. If you paid in longer, then you should get more but that is about it.
I guess we finally all agree on something?