Women and Bush's social security plan

"Why should woman #1 automatically be granted a much higher benefit then woman #2 for doing the same job when neither of their benefits is calculted on what they've actually done? Why shouldn't there be a standard defined benefit established for a stay at home parent that isn't dependent on someone else's earnings?"

This is about the sexist statement I have come across on a2k.

Fairly simply. There is a large difference between having any automatic right to half of one's income and having a vested claim to half of teh marital assets. The first is an "in kind" division of property and isn't required even in any of the community property states. The claim that is almost always used (in community property states) is against half of the total assets. The car, house, bank accounts aren't all cut in half. The total value of all marital assets is calculated and each is awarded as close to half of the total as possible.

I have said nothing even remotely like this. If what I were advocating were to happen, anyone that spends their lives as a "stay at home spouse" would have their SS benefit set at a predetermined rate instead of relying on their spouses income.

Take 2 women - both choose to stay at home and raise their 3 children. Woman #1 has a spouse that earns $5 million/year. Woman #2 has a spouse that earns $20K/year.

Why should woman #1 automatically be granted a much higher benefit then woman #2 for doing the same job when neither of their benefits is calculted on what they've actually done? Why shouldn't there be a standard defined benefit established for a stay at home parent that isn't dependent on someone else's earnings?

I am a stay at home mom and my husband works. Yet we consider any money he brings home to be our money. What is his is mine and what is mine is his.

If it is not naturally so that once a couple gets married then everything is shared between them, why do people have prenuptial agreements?

The reason it is not fair to have a set amount specified for a stay at home parent is because what if the working spouse makes a lot of money? For one thing he or she most likely didn't do it without the support and help of his or her stay at home spouse. Or a parent who just happens to have a lower paying job but is still a equal partner in the marriage.

Being married is supposed to be mean having the advantage of a legal security in the event that your partner dies or divorce.

I am wondering if you realize how contradictory your post is. First you said, "It is their husbands to do with as he pleases not the wife's." Then you appeared to realize how that would play out so you added, "…something that should be discussed together…"

I just don't understand the desire to take something which is guaranteed into something which is not.

I understand that in later years we are going to start having real SS crises. However, I don't understand why with all the smart people in the world a solution is not found that does not put the whole program at risk.

revel wrote:

I am a stay at home mom and my husband works. Yet we consider any money he brings home to be our money. What is his is mine and what is mine is his.

If it is not naturally so that once a couple gets married then everything is shared between them, why do people have prenuptial agreements?

It's nice that you can agree that things belong to the both of you equeally. In an ideal world that would happen in every marriage and none of them would end in divorce. That ideal world doesn't exist thouugh.

Prenuptiual agreements exist because judges use reasonging along the lines of "...to live in the fashion he/she has become accustomed to..." when settling divorce cases.The prenup generally covers the people's assets that they have going into the marriage as well. But you generally only see them used when there is a very large disparity in wealth between the two. Partners who enter a marriage with equeal wealth and eqeal earning power don't bother because there is little benefit to them. And SS pays out regardless of any prenup.

To my mind this proves that there is an inherent understanding that marriageable assets and property belong to both partners regardless of who actually earns the money. Your argument though sounding good really does not say otherwise. If there was not an inherent understanding that when you are married your spouse is entitled to half your assets then people would not worry about their spouses taking them to the cleaners in the event of a divorce.

Quote:

The reason it is not fair to have a set amount specified for a stay at home parent is because what if the working spouse makes a lot of money? For one thing he or she most likely didn't do it without the support and help of his or her stay at home spouse. Or a parent who just happens to have a lower paying job but is still a equal partner in the marriage.

What if the working spouse makes a lot of money? I don't see much of what that has to do with it. There is a cap on reportable income for SS purposes. Whether they make $100,000 or $1,000,000 SS still will only credit them with about $80K right now.

The reason it makes a difference is that if you took away the money a spouse would get from SS based on their partner's earnings who makes more money than his/or her spouse, then we are back to the less earning spouse receiving less money than if he/she stayed on the existing SS plan. If the cap is set on the amount anyone can receive, the less earning partner will still receive less money in the cap range than the partner who earns more money if the one earning less money is below where the cap is set.


While it's a nice idea that people are equeal in their marriages the existing system also ties the stay at home spouse (which is the woman in most cases) to their spouses income. What happens to the millions of couples that divorce? Should the stay at home spouse still be forced to be tied to their ex's earnings? That's hardly a fair situation for either of them. Why should my ex-wife be able to increase her retirement income based on income I've earned decades after our divorce? She isn't helping me increase my income in any way at all.

Most women receive alimony for the rest of their lives after a divorce. In some cases now it is the man who receives alimony. The courts must recognize that when you enter in a marriage you are entering into a contract regardless of whether the marriage is ended. I am treading into waters that I have no idea of. I don't know if a woman or a man still receives the SS retirement money after a divorce. But it seems to me that if the courts grant alimony to the lesser paying partner in the marriage because it is not fair that the lesser paying partner has to reduce their standard of living, SS retirement benefits would have the same argument. In the even of death of one partner the argument still holds as well.

Quote:

Being married is supposed to be mean having the advantage of a legal security in the event that your partner dies or divorce.

Why should someone have to get married or remain married to get that security? Why shouldn't they have it in their own right? Why should there be an "advantage"? What happened to "equeal treatment under the law"?

Revel:

Quote:

I am wondering if you realize how contradictory your post is. First you said, "It is their husbands to do with as he pleases not the wife's." Then you appeared to realize how that would play out so you added, "…something that should be discussed together…"

I wasn't being contradictory in the least. I will explain. I earned the money and if I want to invest into private SS accounts, my wife really couldn't say much about the issue. I don't even think a court could say anything because I have paid into the SS account my self and my wife didn't. She could very well do the same thing if she wished with her SS money.

Any couple that is in a truly equal relationship should talk and make the decision together. This won't be so with everyone.

Quote:

I just don't understand the desire to take something which is guaranteed into something which is not.

SS isn't guaranteed. It is promised but it isn't a guarantee by any means. The govt could at any time stop offering SS but they should also at the same time stop taking it out of my paycheck.

Quote:

I understand that in later years we are going to start having real SS crises. However, I don't understand why with all the smart people in the world a solution is not found that does not put the whole program at risk.

The program is all ready at risk. They are attempting to fix the issue as we speak. They should allow it to go forward and those that want it should be allowed to enter it. Those that don't want to take part shouldn't enter into it. I want my choice. After all isn't the left all about choice? If so why not let me have mine?

The reason it makes a difference is that if you took away the money a spouse would get from SS based on their partner's earnings who makes more money than his/or her spouse, then we are back to the less earning spouse receiving less money than if he/she stayed on the existing SS plan. If the cap is set on the amount anyone can receive, the less earning partner will still receive less money in the cap range than the partner who earns more money if the one earning less money is below where the cap is set.

Most women receive alimony for the rest of their lives after a divorce. In some cases now it is the man who receives alimony.

The courts must recognize that when you enter in a marriage you are entering into a contract regardless of whether the marriage is ended. I am treading into waters that I have no idea of. I don't know if a woman or a man still receives the SS retirement money after a divorce. But it seems to me that if the courts grant alimony to the lesser paying partner in the marriage because it is not fair that the lesser paying partner has to reduce their standard of living, SS retirement benefits would have the same argument. In the even of death of one partner the argument still holds as well.