What Price Motherhood? Moms rally to demand Social Security for work as caregivers

The Sunday Star-Ledger (NJ) ^ | 5/11/03 | Peggy O'Crowley

[VeritatisSplendor]

Aaargh! The liberal idiocy of this welfare proposal is bad enough, but what is really infuriating is the uncritically accepted assertion by Ann Crittenden, author of "The Price of Motherhood", that "Motherhood is the single biggest reason for poverty in old age". The number of sleazy statistical moves required to arrive at that conclusion is remarkable.

[fooman]

I have to say that this is a bad idea, especially in the context of a family unit.

All this will do is subsidize more out of wed babies...

[fooman]

I have to say that this is a bad idea, especially in the context of a family unit.

All this will do is subsidize more out of wed babies...

[John Jorsett]

Are they willing to kick in the employer/employee share of the phantom 'wages' they were 'earning' all those years? Plus the 1.3% Medicare tax. Plus interest and penalties, of course. Being self-employed, 16% of my money goes to these things, so let's have them do the same before they claim this benefit they've supposedly earned.

[staytrue]

You have to pay in 15 percent of your income to get social security. Although moms do work, they do not pay into social security. Plus, if they are married to a husband and the wife does not work, they get a much lower tax rate than a single person who works or a married couple that both work.

[staytrue]

Are they willing to kick in the employer/employee share

There is no such thing as an "employer share". An employer is willing to pay 1 dollar to get something done and the employee who does the work gets 85 cents. It's all the employee share.

[babygene]

"All this will do is subsidize more out of wed babies..."

I think your wrong. The mother would only get a portion of the work credit from the working spouse.

She's going to get an amount of SS equivilant to 1/2 of his earning anyway, assuming they were married for 10 or more years. Her getting the work credit would provide her with disability payments if she became disabled.

[expat_panama]

Aaargh! The liberal idiocy of this welfare proposal..

No this is wonderful!  The ladies obviously must be saying that they’ve agreed to pay their back Social Security taxes (oops, 'contributions') with penalties and interest for the years they worked as mothers.   It’s the perfect way to refill the Social Security Ponzy scam to keep it afloat a few years longer. [/sarcasm]

 

[pepsionice]

Lets all step back a second and remember what social security was supposed to be in the first place...never a retirement...just a helping hand. No one in the Roosevelt administration ever figured that people would simply start accepting this as retirement. It was never supposed to grow to such an animal. If we intend for it to be that...then we need massive change...and then we can discuss this idea of mothers retirement pay.

[Alouette]

"Motherhood is the single biggest reason for poverty in old age."

What happened to the grownup kids taking care of dear old Mom? That must be so--so--(ugh!)--fundamentalist!

[fooman]

See number five above. But if the mother and husband stay married, why the need for the extra accounting?

I really challenged myself before my statement. My wife and I are both professionals and are looking to have kids soon, but late in life.

It is true that a moms work is under valued. Actually in my circles the title mother is only given to those who have had at least three.

The real beef I have with this is yet more government involvement to promote fault free pagan lifestyles....

[shhrubbery!]

the uncritically accepted assertion by Ann Crittenden, author of "The Price of Motherhood", that "Motherhood is the single biggest reason for poverty in old age"

Someone should inform this woman that if too many shun "motherhood," the liberal sacred cow called "Social Security" will vanish too.

Not only that, but the diminishing population would contribute in diminishing amounts to the overall economy. Result: Impoverishment for everyone.

[fooman]

I was thinking the same thing. I know women who never had children and feel pretty lonely right now.

[FourPeas]

It's all just more socialist claptrap. Pure stupidity. But, as a woman and stay-at-home mother, I can honestly see lots of women falling for it. It's only fair; it's for the children. Like the stupid notion of federally mandated maternity leave, I predict it will shortly become an issue that finds its way into the mainstream.

[Marie]

Wait a minute! For all you nay-sayers; wasn't social security originally intended for widows and orphans????

[fooman]

It takes courage for this lifestyle choice. Thanks for your insight and your contribution.

[SarahW]

That doesn't really seem all that outrageous.

Here's one thing about the current system that's bothered me...

I worked. I worked for many years, and paid SS taxes like everybody else. But then DH and I had a baby, and since then I've been out of the tax-paying workforce.

I don't mind being able to choose between my own or my husbands benefits...

But it bugs me that if I become disabled, I have no SS protection. It goes away if you stay out of the workforce, and I'd have to work again for two full years before I was eligible again.

Maybe the system can't afford it, but the inelibility for SS benefits bothers me. I work every day of my life. My family counts on my work. (Childrearing,homeschooling, home maintenance, etc). That's accounted for in my eligibility to collect benefits based on my contributions or my husbands.

But If I lost the ability to make contributions to my household, there is no protection for me or my family at all. (which is why we have private insurance).

They should at least change the law so that healthy mothers who re-enter the workforce do not have to wait two years to be eligible for disability benefits.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"We support caregiving in a Hallmark way, but what are we doing as a society to value it?"

I don't want Hallmark platitudes, I don't want a SS check... I want what my family already gives me... love and support on a daily basis.

If a woman marries and has children, is she doing this for the good of society, future financial security, a pat on the head from the socialists... or is she doing it for herself? I didn't think of society's demands on the day that I married, nor the days when my children were born. What I did think about what how my life had changed, because I had chosen the right course FOR ME!

Why aren't marriage and motherhood seen as their own rewards, anymore? Why let the liberal ideology steal the pride of motherhood away from us? Why give them an inch, for a SS benefit?

[SarahW]

I don't speak for you or anyone else, but *I* did it for the good of my family, and society in general and ony *lastly* myself.

I enjoyed working. I made a good salary, more (at the time) than my husband, and I liked the independance and financial security.

I think children are better off and society is better off if the mother stays home to care for her children. I even chose homeschooling because that's better for my child and for society

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I agree with you about motherhood being important to how society functions... but, my point was that I do not need a reward from society. My husband and children are reward enough. I do hope, that by staying at home, that my children will benefit and become wonderful young people, able to prosper in the world. I just an not willing to stake claim to how much I influenced the greater society as a whole, when they are still really young and I have much work to do.