Paid leave for new parents, long a Democratic cause, has become a Republican one, too. But policymakers don’t agree on what a leave plan should look like. Now some Republicans have a new idea: Let people collect Social Security benefits early to pay for time off after they have a baby.
Unlike some other proposals, this would require no new taxes. There’s a catch, though: Parents would have their Social Security benefits delayed when they retire to offset the costs. ...
Ms. Lukas [a proponent] has said that she hoped the proposal would “encourage an important mental shift” in the way people think about Social Security. If individuals view it as “property,” she reasons, it could lead to the embrace of personal accounts.
My opinion is that there is essentially a 0% chance this gets enacted as proposed. It's not happening without Democratic support and that isn't going to happen, not now, not ever. Find a way to give government-paid parental leave without reducing retirement benefits, sure, but not this. The GOP has been pursuing ways to undermine Social Security since the 1930s. The party has no credibility when it comes to Social Security.That reasoning is why some experts view the proposal as a backdoor way to try to curb the scale and cost of Social Security. They also said it could put women in a more precarious position in retirement, adding yet another financial penalty to the list that women pay when they become mothers. ...
If they started dipping into Soc Sec for this - it would set a dangerous precedent for using Soc Sec funds for whatever else they come up with...
ReplyDeleteAnd how would taking these benefits to pay for maternity and paternity leave affect future disability and survivor benefits? Not being able to read the article (paywall) this seems to be a simplistic idea not well thought out about all of its implications. It sounds good until you take some time to think it over.
ReplyDeleteI can see it now.
ReplyDeleteALJ Decision: While I appreciate the claimant wanting to collect social security after giving birth there just isn't substantial objective evidence that the claimant ever gave birth.
I understand a child was born, however the record shows a C-section was performed instead of a natural birth. Technically a C-section is not a natural birth, therefore no child was born. I give little weight to the treating OBGYN, because my medical experience gained from watching countless episodes of ER proves her opinion is invalid.
Signed,
Your average ALJ