Comments on: Policy Proposals: The Social Security Credit

By: mama mia

mama mia — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:22:22 +0000

Yeah, like Alara said, the “family values” crowd actually contradicts themselves on stuff like this. Things that actually support family values, as this would, are considered big government. They would fight against this kind of thing, with a line of conservative stay at home parents lining up to say they don’t want handouts.

The frustrating thing is, this is also not going to get any traction on the liberal side either since stay at home parents are widely assumed to be ultra Christian and anti-feminist. You have comments like Mrs. T (#3 on this thread) generalizing that stay at home moms are not hard working and lots of people who feel that SAH parents hurt society.

Personally, I am really glad you posted this, though. I plan on reading your blog now.

By: Alara Rogers

Alara Rogers — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:11:18 +0000

The thing about SS credit is that it actually appeals to the “family values” constituents out there, those who firmly believe that a woman’s place is in the home.

Well, it *would*, if they weren’t all crazies who move in lockstep with whatever their puppet masters are telling them this week.

No one has ever gotten anywhere with those people by pointing out that universal health care coverage for pregnant and post-partum women and children would help give women alternatives to abortion (I say this as someone who once seriously contemplated abortion because I might have not been able to make my monthly premium on my individually-purchased policy, and if the coverage lapsed at all, the pregnancy would become a pre-existing condition that wouldn’t be covered). No one has ever gotten Republican small business owners and Kool-aid drinkers to recognize that universal health care would remove a *huge* drain on small business and make them much more competitive with larger businesses. Republicans vote against their own self-interest all the damn time, that’s why they’re Republicans.

So while any sensible person who thinks that a traditional family with a mother at home is best *should* think that encouraging such things by giving the mother a social security credit would be helpful… I’ll bet you anything they’d be against it. Because, you see, it recognizes that women are people, who deserve to have nice things, and it shows compassion, and it costs taxpayer money. Conservatives consider all three things anathema.

By: KMTBerry

KMTBerry — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:29:53 +0000

This idea is so WAY overdue I can’t believe it! Raising the next generation is the most important thing every society does! I am not myself a mother, but I would have No Problem with unpaid caregivers of all stripes getting a SS credit for the work they do. I am OK with just picking a nice round number: say, $30,000 to start with.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:18:29 +0000

The thing about SS credit is that it actually appeals to the “family values” constituents out there, those who firmly believe that a woman’s place is in the home. So, it has broader appeal, perhaps than some other options. Not that I like to espouse the idea that women ought to be at home, but it’s politically smart to tap into that group. What I’d love to see, actually, is a lot more part-time work, work that’s intellectually stimulating, pays a reasonable salary, and has sliding-scale benefits. Sadly, I don’t think *that’s* happening any time soon either.

By: margie

margie — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:30:27 +0000

I really like the ss credit idea, whatever the amount. But if this country can’t even agree that everyone has the right to decent healthcare, I doubt ss credits for SAHMs will ever happen.

By: preying mantis

preying mantis — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:11:44 +0000

“The estimate that a SAHM does $100,000 worth of work is way off; Salary.com does this every year, and they do it by adding in a CEO’s salary and a psychiatrist’s salary.”

I think a lot of the overvaluing(?) of what a SAHP would make at the going rates is dependent on them being on-call 24/7/365. You pay extra for that shit in a reasonable economy. You’re also unlikely to find the combination package typically provided by a SAHP in an employee–the person who handles your finances probably won’t be willing to also scrub your toilet–which tends to translate into either wasted time and money or taking over the task yourself, which frequently means having to outsource things you used to do.

By: PhilosopherP

PhilosopherP — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:42:54 +0000

It’s literally impossible to be accurate in calculating the financial “worth” of a stay at home parent. It’s also quite demeaning to assume that there is any way to calculate the value of the love and good foundation a stay at home parent can give a child.

I prefer the idea that the parent staying home gets credits equal to the credits earned by the working spouse in the same time frame. This way a late in life divorce doesn’t mean that a spouse whose main purpose was to support a high-earning spouse would be unable to support themselves. Of course, this idea is based on an assumption that — if the stay at home spouse took a job, the family’s income would double — but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that folks marry others who are similar to themselves in earning capacity…

By: Lovina

Lovina — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:55:48 +0000

Definitely agree that there should be a larger tax credit. But agree with Alara Rogers that it shouldn’t be based on a $100,000 salary. A SAHM DOES have a hard job. I’ve been one. The hardest part, IMHO, is the brain-drain of having to maintain a 1-2 yr old’s mindset and…not getting breaks when you want them. There are perks, too, however that you don’t need to deal with in the work world. Less pressure (no time pressures of having to be at work by xx time, having to attend meetings at xx time, having to deliver projects by xx date) and occasionally, you may even be able to sneak in a nap here or there or sit and read during downtimes. Additionally, there are no qualifications for being a SAHM and different SAHM’s may choose to use the time at home in different ways. Some institute a rigor every day to maximize their children’s learning. Others may not see this as important and therefore, allow their child/ren to spend time watching TV or just finding ‘things to do’ around the house. Depending on the way a SAHM spends her day, her value/talents/work could and would demand different payscales if in the workforce.

$100,000 – I’ve heard that number tossed around a lot and it seems to be more for affect than based on actual facts that would be applied within the outside workforce. But again, I agree with Alara Rogers – it should certainly be higher than $16K and is absolutely higher than 0.

By: Ms. T

Ms. T — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:30:05 +0000

Why couldn’t we just base the amount on whatever the average pay for a live in nanny is? I have never undertood why they are considered employed and hard working, but stay at home parents are often not. Why couldnt we just give parents the option to “hire” themselves for childcare, and pay into the social security system just like they would do for a hired caregiver.

By: Kaethe

Kaethe — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:27:11 +0000

I love the idea of a social security credit, although in our home it’s for the SAHD. I’ve been worrying about SS for him for years now.