SAHM: what do you do to protect yourself financially?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

Don’t blame women. Blame the men who created a system where men reap the unpaid labor of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

You are ugly inside and out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

LOLOLOLOL.
What!??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

Don’t blame women. Blame the men who created a system where men reap the unpaid labor of the women who allow it.

FTFY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

[Anonymous]

Marry a great provider to begin with, and do not sign a disadvantageous prenup. Everything else flows from that. You marry a person who is a low earner and there is no scope for financial security - even if you remain married to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Great, you worked and contributed toward your benefits. The bigger issue people are pointing out is women who have never worked. Contributing something is better then never contributing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Great, you worked and contributed toward your benefits. The bigger issue people are pointing out is women who have never worked. Contributing something is better then never contributing at all.

If you've been married for 10+ years you have the choice of collecting your own earned benefit or your spousal benefit. Either, or. A stay at home spouse who has been married to a working spouse for 10+ years does, in fact, qualify for a spousal benefit. I honestly don't have an issue with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking someone’s earned SS benefit/ retirement? Don’t people have any pride? I literally cannot imagine feeling entitled to money someone else earned. I don’t get it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Presumably, the SAH spouse enabled the working spouse to earn more money over the lifetime of their marriage. As a legally married couple they have paid their taxes over the years. And most likely the working spouse has earned well above the minimum social security earnings necessary to qualify for the maximum social security benefit - maybe double, triple or even quadruple the minimum earnings needed to qualify for the maximum benefit. Yet, instead of getting two maximum benefits, they, as a couple only get 1.5. If the working spouse dies the non-working spouse will be left with only 1/2 of his benefit.

Had the husband and wife both worked, they could have both earned less money, paid less in taxes and still qualified for two maximum benefits.

In my own case, I worked before marriage and I qualify for either my own social security benefit OR half my spouse's, whichever is greatest. Most SAHs that I know have, in fact, paid into social security, they have just done it through their own work before kids and through their spouse's enhanced income due to having a SAH spouse.

No one gets married, quits their job and SAH for 10+ years because they are getting a fabulous deal on social security. They absolutely have earned the right to a retirement income though, even if it is half of the social security check that their working spouse gets.

Is your first statement something that is known? Do workers with a stay at home spouse on average have a higher income than those with two working partners? Because there are many of us 2 parent working families that both earn well above the min earnings required for max benefit. But we can each only draw 1x the max benefit.

I don’t think we should allow sahps to pull from as (unless of course it’s based on their own earning pre and/or post kids).

Do you think that a long time married dual earning couple - with one a high earner 275K, the other a "parent tracked" lower earner 30K should be restricted to just their own SS earnings? Maybe the lower earning spouse would do better taking 1/2 of the working spouse's SS rather than taking their own earned benefit.

Yeah I think we should remove the spousal benefit for everyone - whether you are working or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

Because we are sociopaths who hate women and childrem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

Because we are sociopaths who hate women and childrem.

lol

[Anonymous]

No, because it's not a fairly set up benefit. It largely privileges wealthy women who don't need it. A fairer system would be to increase benefits to everyone who paid in and get rid of spousal payment entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife has not worked in 20 years. She came into marriage 20k cash and a Toyota with a loan.

My net worth was 100k

Today our net worth 5 million of which she gets 2.5 million in divorce. She also collects my full SS as married over 10 year

. +1. This is DH and I, the numbers are slightly different, but in the same ballparks. Plus, I have a small pension from before- which would e split or accounted.

We need to stop paying SS to those that did not contribute to the fund.

+1000.

A spousal SS is only half of the primary. You have to choose between your own, or half of your spouses.

If you worked. If you never worked, or didn’t work enough to qualify for SS, you still are eligible for up to half of your spouses (or ex-spouses benefit). That is what PPs are referring to when they say we need to get rid of the benefit. We are paying SS to people who never worked. And it’s not like their spouse paid in 1.5 x their contribution to offset what will be withdrawn.

At a very general level, we all benefit as a society from the unpaid labor of SAHMs, who frequently (but obviously not always) take on additional work helping out in our schools, local communities, etc. Perhaps spousal SS payments are not the best and most efficient way to provide some minimal support to those individuals, but it's certainly the one that's best baked into our current system.

Oh please. I work and pay taxes, which includes SS that some housewife will get when she retires (snort). I also pay for childcare and contribute to someone else’s income and their taxes. Once the kids are in school, there isn’t much to contribute outside of filling Pilates classes and tennis lessons.
If you are wealthy enough to be a housewife, you are wealthy enough to forgo collecting SS you haven’t paid into.

I'm a SAH spouse and I paid into social security and I have earned my own benefit. I have also been married for 10+ years and qualify for a spousal benefit (1/2 of my spouse's benefit). I will either collect my own benefit or my spousal benefit, whichever is highest. If you've been married for 10+ years, you'll get the same deal. It's not like I'm getting something special that you aren't.

Right. We are discussing getting rid of the spousal benefit for everyone

And I do not agree with that at all. Marriage is a legal union and there are benefits and protections that come with that union.

Sure marriage is a legal union. But why should it permit people to withdraw from a savings program they haven’t paid into? Should my husband’s 401K match be offered to me because I am his spouse?