Originally Posted by
CX500T
Because in my mom's case, she had been a SAHM for 30 years (I was the youngest, by a lot), and right after my dad died she got cancer. But hey, she totally could have worked enough to get $800 a month or less, (min benefit is comically low, sub $50 a month) or you know, the $2800ish my dad earned then died too young to collect.
My mom also live in a very rural area. You aren't even gonna break even driving for Uber Eats after driving 50 miles to the nearest place that uses it.
But hey, Opie probably wants that money earmarked for something else special to him. I don't plan on seeing a dime of it, but I paid in. My wife should get $3600ish a month if I keel over before retirement, but per Opie he has better uses for that cash. She should have worked outside the home versus running the home so I could go make $$ and max out my social security benefit.
I never brought your mom into it you did. I never intended “jerk the rug” and include anyone from a different generation. You should re read the context and quit getting offended unless you have a better idea or can prove it isn’t broken.
I think hardship needs to be looked at obviously, but think the country is moving towards only wealthy women not working, and the system is broken and built to where there is a free lunch baked into it, take the free lunch out for the next gen, and continue to look at hardship cases individually.
Women can work, it’s not suppose to be offensive.
For every hardship case there are plenty of women drawing spousal SS who are sitting on a million dollar estate, and their husband drew for 10+ years before dying. I am not even saying take them off, I am just saying take it out for young people to plan on.