How about all the women who have had to take over for their husbands .. because they are either still serving overseas, came back wounded, or never came back.
Didn’t anybody think of that ..??
A very excellent point that proves the rule.
If our men are overseas in wars, then times aren’t so good.
If we could cut taxes in real ways, then fewer ladies would need to work and we’d have better children, raised by mothers and not nannies or teachers.
That’s nowhere near 40%....doc1019 may have it if female head of household = “breadwinner.”
That segment is so small as to not be worthy of discussing.
And nobody is begrudging them anyway. Nobody ever has,,anywhere.
They were discussing 40% of households. At most, 1% of households are single moms earning because of deployments and war wounds. And actually it’s far below that. We do not have 3 million in the field.
That’s different and you know it.
If the husband is still serving, then his pay is still coming so that situation doesn’t apply. Wounded and disabled might apply since that pay rate is much less than duty pay. In the case of death, then the woman would become the primary provider. These cases are very small in a statistical sense even though they have a huge impact in those specific circumstance.