Militants - are they for real?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Militants - are they for real?
3449
Tue, 04-14-2009 - 6:59pm

Someone on another board posted this link.
http://blogs.babycenter.com/celebrities/2009/04/12/dr-laura-says-all-moms-should-stay-at-home/?scid=momstodd_20090414_A:2&pe=2U8vYLf
It's about Dr. Laura saying that all women should be SAHMs until the child is at least 3 years old.

Whether we're talking about working or staying at home, I can't quite wrap my head around what is going on inside the brains of people that apply the phrase "all women should".

Do you think militants are actually serious, or just trying to get a rise out of others?

Photobucket

pregnancy calendar








Photobucket

Photobucket




Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:35pm

<<Wouldn't they have to plan just like the sahp would? >>


No, they would plan differently, please see post 2991 for details.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:36pm

<<Still waiting for an answer on the wohp who is not offered retirement plans from their employer. >>


Differently than

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:38pm
So what if they did not have a spouse and no retirement plan at work? They would still have to plan the same way a sahp would.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:43pm
It may be. It may not be. And the WOHP who doesn't get a plan through work should still set something up in addition to Social Security. But even so, it still is a difference. A SAHM isn't paying into Social Security. A WOHM is. So even if Social Security benefits aren't sufficient for retirement (and I don't think they are), they are still more than the SAHM has.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:43pm

No, they would plan differently, please see post 2991 for details.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:44pm
I agree with you on that BUT I don't believe ss will be there for my age and younger and there will be no difference between the wohp and sahp then if they are just relying on that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:45pm
No, not really. They would still have to do something on their own, if they choose to.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:48pm

Yes really and you are correct they would have to do something on their own, but the plan would be different because they are a wohp, the rules/laws/regulations whatever....favor the working in regards to planning retirement funds.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:53pm
Yes, I am aware of that but you still would have to plan (if you choose to) like a sahp would have to. Not all jobs offer retirement plans and ss most likely will not be there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2007
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 4:54pm

There is a spousal supplement- I know my grandmother had one and she worked for pay about 3 weeks in her entire 99.5 year life - it kept her out of poverty.

That said, most SAHPs I know worked at least the minimum 40 quarters- so they will get something. Plus, most go back after a few years at home. I don't think a gap of even 15 years really impacts the Social Security income too much as it looks at the highest five years of income. For higher income workers - they max out on benefits- and would get the same benefits. For lower income workers- their "maximum five year income" would be similar regardless of time off. It is the ones in between that would be affected- the ones that don't max out on benefits and would end up making more in their later years if they had stayed in the work force.

For those that say Social Security will not be there when we retire: It will. We might not get 100% of the expected benefits (more like 75-80%) but there will still be that safety net - even if they don't change a thing.

Pages