Mothers Ought to Have Rights!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-27-2003
Mothers Ought to Have Rights!
10
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 6:15pm


PUT THE VALUE BACK INTO FAMILY VALUES

Demand Social Security Credits For Family Caregivers

MOTHERS (Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights), a nonprofit coalition whose mission is to improve the economic well-being of mothers and other family caregivers, is mobilizing concerned caregivers around the country to virtually march on Washington in celebration of Mother’s Day. They are asking people to send emails and faxes to Congress urging them to support a reform of the Social Security system that would credit family caregivers for their work.

To participate in the campaign, visit http://www.mothersoughttohaveequalrights.org/mothers_day/where you can learn all about the issues, advocate to change unfair policies by sending an email to your member of Congress, connect with other who care through the MOTHERS enewsletter and online forums, and spread the word by using their “tell a friend” feature.

To learn more about MOTHERS see their website: http://www.mothersoughttohaveequalrights.org/

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 10:26pm
Then I want DOUBLE credits for the years I worked full time while also being a "family care giver"!
Avatar for ahlmommy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 10:17am
<>

While I disagree with the original poster...I disagree with you as well. You CHOSE to work while your children were small. You were not home full time with your children. My full time job is mother at this point of my life. I do not think I deserve social security benefits while I am home. I CHOOSE to be at home with my kids. Having my children was my choice. I don't deserve anything "extra" from the government because I chose to do the right thing by my children. While I *see* where the original poster is coming from, I find what you wrote as absurd. Once again though I don't think I should get special anything from anyone for doing what I chose to do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 11:23am
Didn't you notice the "wink" icon? Of course my comment was absurd. So is the premise that someone should get Social Security benefits for simply participating in "life".
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 3:02pm
Your statement goes to the heart of many of the problems with this country.

Too many people feel that the Federal Government is there to take care of them, and that is not the role of the government at all.

This is why programs such as welfare have failed so miserably in the past, because too many people that do not really need it, are on the welfare roles, and abuse the system.

Avatar for lucy4980
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 4:31pm
Anybody over the age of 60 who is counting on Social Security to carry them through retirement is taking a huge gamble IMO. People better start planning for their own retirement rather than relying on a government program. Besides, even if the SS program was solid and could reasonably be expected to last indefinitely - the basis of the program is that people pay into the system for the 40 some odd years they work and they get to take money out of the system during retirement. If those that don't pay into the system are eligible for payments after retirement, then those who are paying into the system will have to pay that much more to support those who haven't paid. That doesn't seem at all fair.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 10:33pm
Also, one of the reasons that there is such a heavy burden on the Social Security program is that when it was founded, the government failed to take into account that the life expectancy of people would actually increase as medical advancements were made. Ooops.

The life expectancy of the average man in 1945 was 69, and now is almost 75. Makes a big difference.

Avatar for lucy4980
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-30-2003 - 1:06pm
That is a very good point. And with the Baby Boomers approaching retirement age, the system will really be taxed.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2003
Sun, 05-04-2003 - 5:58am
The current system isn't fair either because the original system didn't include medical coverage or disability benefits, so the retirees of today did not pay for those systems, while they are benefiting from them.

Cherie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 05-05-2003 - 11:46pm
I'm sorry but like another poster said in here,,,"You choose to have your children". Why should I pay for you to stay home?! Life isn't fair. Get creative do a home business...Ideas here,,,Run your own daycare, Sell Jewelry, Avon, Party lights, pampered chef, work swing shift at an office or part time at a drug store/grocery...(They will work around your schedule) while your husband stays home at night. I do NOT support this at all! No one says being a parent is easy nor should you be handed a paycheck for babysitting your own kids by the government!!

The question is from the FAQ‘S section of the website, Do you want the government to pay mothers for raising their children?

For example, nannies get Social Security credits but mothers do not. Full-time employed workers qualify for unemployment insurance and workman's compensation, but most mothers, including those working part-time or at home do not. We believe that this is blatantly unfair and a major reason why motherhood is the single biggest risk factor for poverty in America.

The reason those that work outside the home including nannys ect... can qualify for the Unemployment, Social Security and Workers Comp benefits is because the workers and the employers pay into them! Why would you want Workers Comp. Unless you get hurt at work…??? Am I not undertanding this????


Edited 5/5/2003 11:47:04 PM ET by mindy7rns

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-06-2003 - 9:40am
Good point. (nt)