Children OK, widows put them to work. I have to work what makes them different from me? Many women seek social security benefits--have NEVER paid into the system, and now expects to recieve what there working husband would normally recieve, need a wake up call. Husband was probably over paid, and now is over compensated with SS. Then here comes Lulu wanting his share--after she played bridge for 55 years. I worked all my life, am educated and was manipulated out of a pension because of my disablity, so I still have to work, and she gets more than me, move over sister. Here is where the whole discussion is going, pointing to the greedy working male and his non working wife and kids status quo. If you don't pay into it, why should you get it? Also that male should have the same child rearing years deducted as I have had to have, and a reduced equation should also compensate for the fact that women my age were never given pensions in the work environment. Big daddy made the bucks, even on disability I get less than a man with the same disability because of inequities. The playing field is not level, so don't add more weight with a poor widow stories. If she has your pension, work for the rest of it, I have to, and I have a disability. As far as investing money, consider this. A large percentage of people age 55 and over will develope a disability. So your money is tied up in stocks right? The medical profession can snap it right off you should you incur a catastrophic medical expense. Another thing I do not want the Government in the business of owning companies via stocks. Sounds like Socialisium to me.
