Puffer Fish wrote:I don't understand what you are trying to say, and I suspect even you don't understand what you are talking about.
She does get something from her work if she earns more than her husband. If she earns less than her husband, she arguably gets money that is undeserved.
Like a typical Leftie progressive, it seems you want her to eat her cake and still have it too. I can't think of a point to your post unless you were trying to argue she should get her husband's money AND still get the extra money from her own.
Which would obviously be excessive and unfair.
In my personal opinion, I think maybe they should change it back, so she only gets 70% if he dies. Or she gets 100% but only counting his years that she was married to him. Whichever is more.
Because these days many women don't tend to stay married to the same man for very long, and may often get married two or three times in their life, or marriage may not even be something very important on their life, and they remain unmarried by choice for most of their life.
It's not really money you are "entitled to", because that implies that your family members should get that money if you die. It's more like an insurance plan or an annuity. It will pay you some money until you die. It's meant to help provide for people when they retire, if they are still alive.
What I wrote was, "Is this fair? Shouldn't she get something from her work and the payments she was forced to make?"
. . . By something I thought it would be obvious I meant less than 100% of what she "earned". So, maybe 50% or 33% of what she would be "entitled to".
Are you aware that Soc. Sec. was started when most Mons stayed home and never had a job of their own? They got 2/3 of their husband's payment so they couple could survive.
. . . The law was changed in the 70s or 80s because the female survivor was being forced to live on less than half of what the couple got, and they fell into poverty as a result.
So, the system originally gave the husband enough to support his wife as payments to her. This was seen as money that he earned.
She wasn't getting it, he was. Single men were the ones being screwed, it wasn't that the wives got money they were not "entitled to".
Yes, times have changed. Marriages don't last like they did in the 40s. I'm not sure what the law is about multiple divorces. So, I can't comment.
You seem to be complaining that the elderly are becoming homeless and that is a bad thing. If so, then I agree with you.
OTOH, you seem to want to cut SS payments, because the system can't afford to pay them. Do you realize that cutting them will make more homeless retired people?
With-all-due-respect, the US is one of the richest or maybe the richest nation at the present time. I totally reject the idea that it can't afford to keep its retired people out of poverty. This is why I say that IMHO the rich and corps are way
undertaxed in America. It isn't that we spend too much (we spend too little incl. on maintaining our infrastructure), the problem is the rich are undertaxed.