Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mothers rarely worked outside the home because they weren't allowed to hold jobs or get educated for most male professions, plus too many kids. They are covered by their husband's SS, which they would lose if the husband divorced them up until the 1960s.

The GOP will eliminate SS soon anyway. Moot point.

Actually in some communities, mothers usually did work outside the home. Social Security was carefully crafted so that most of these mothers would not be eligible for benefits though.

It’s not the conspiracy you’re alluding too. Eligibility is determined based on payroll wages. Working under the table then and now makes you not eligible for SSI.

Anonymous wrote:Mothers rarely worked outside the home because they weren't allowed to hold jobs or get educated for most male professions, plus too many kids. They are covered by their husband's SS, which they would lose if the husband divorced them up until the 1960s.

The GOP will eliminate SS soon anyway. Moot point.

Actually in some communities, mothers usually did work outside the home. Social Security was carefully crafted so that most of these mothers would not be eligible for benefits though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

That “work” is for their family and doesn’t benefit society at all. A larger tax base benefits society.

You clearly don’t understand how work for a family benefits society as a whole. Luckily, our legislators do.

Backward legislators that think women should be barefoot and pregnant...

The "benefit to society" you claim they're providing is the same thing that working parents do too-- they just don't have all day to do it.

+1 million

Also their HHI is usually high to afford SAH, why are we subsidizing their extra 50% social security

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

So the Working mom need to subsidize SAHM when we also need to do those “work” for our families in the evening and weekend??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

That “work” is for their family and doesn’t benefit society at all. A larger tax base benefits society.

You clearly don’t understand how work for a family benefits society as a whole. Luckily, our legislators do.

You clearly don’t understand why this law was created. It wasn’t because you not working benefited society. Thankfully, we have evolved over the last 85 years. This provision will be the first cut as part of the overhaul of SSI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

That “work” is for their family and doesn’t benefit society at all. A larger tax base benefits society.

You clearly don’t understand how work for a family benefits society as a whole. Luckily, our legislators do.

Backward legislators that think women should be barefoot and pregnant...

The "benefit to society" you claim they're providing is the same thing that working parents do too-- they just don't have all day to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

That “work” is for their family and doesn’t benefit society at all. A larger tax base benefits society.

You clearly don’t understand how work for a family benefits society as a whole. Luckily, our legislators do.

If you have never worked, you can still qualify for free premium Medicare part A (covers hospitalization) when you turn 65, or if you have certain illnesses (ALS or Kidney failure) even though you are younger than 65 IF:

- you are married 1+ years, and your spouse worked long enough to qualify for Medicare (and is currently eligible for it)

or you are divorced, but were married at least 10 years, and your ex qualified for Medicare and is currently eligibile for it.


However... if you never worked or didn't work enough on your own, and you become disabled you cannot qualify for SSDI (Social Security disability) based on your spouse's eligibility. You can qualify for SSI, but that benefit has an asset test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

That “work” is for their family and doesn’t benefit society at all. A larger tax base benefits society.

Anonymous wrote:So we are subsidizing the SAHM’s 50% benefits?
How’s is that fair?

Because they are doing a lot of work for free that benefits our society as a whole.

This thread should be a wake-up call to any woman to contact Social Security to see just what benefits she might qualify for on her own work history and to have an understanding of her spousal benefit. If one is married for at least 10 years and divorces, then there is the opportunity to receive a benefit on the former spouse, BUT that would also depend on whether a subsequent wife would be collecting, too. I know for a disabled adult child that she collects on her own work record and half of her dad's Social Security. If I collect on my husband's account I would draw down from my limited Social Security first and the difference to the amount I am due on my husband's account. Since a disabled adult daughter would qualify for 75% of his SS Benefit, her work record benefit would be computed first and the difference from his to equal 75%. Likewise, in computing my benefit, my work record benefit would be drawn down and the difference in my husband's full benefit would then be added to equal 100%. I just checked and the limit of payout on one worker's Social Security benefit among those family members (current and/or from divorce) who qualify is somewhere between 150% - 180% of the benefit amount. Now one can see how Social Security is like a house of cards