I received this response from Nancy L. Sander of Counseling-Based Estate Planning on a comment I recently posted on her article about women and estate planning:

Thank you for commenting on my article. Another story from my personal experience – when IRAs were first introduced in the 70's I was a homemaker.  I could only put aside $1,250.00 per year.  The $2,500.00 had to be split between Husband and Wife.  Homemakers are much devalued in society even though they are tackling the toughest job – preparing their children for the world.

As my article and your website point out, women are in and out of the workplace because of family responsibilities.  This certainly remains true today, and today's mothers are under pressure to earn money for their families as well as their household responsibilities. 

Often they later find themselves divorced through no fault of their own, and totally lacking adequate retirement funds.  This all needs to be considered when planning their estates.

Yesterday, Associated Press reported on a study that showed that 4 out of 5 workers are not saving enough for retirement and that women are at a significant disadvantage in this area. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25480689/). The study, done by Hewitt Associates, showed that while both men and women contribute to retirement plans, women have an 8% greater shortfall in savings. Why are women at such a disadvantage? The study answers this question with the wage differences of men and women, as well as a longer lifespan. However, the study stands out in its acknowledgement of a lesser-realized reason for the retirement savings difference: "women tend to be in and out of the work force more frequently for family reasons, leading to breaks in savings."

But the real reason that women are at a disadvantage for saving for retirement is because our tax and labor laws make it that way. Women work part-time at a much higher rate than men because of care-giving responsibilities for children or elderly family members. Working part-time gives them more flexibility to raise children and care for their families' needs. However, part-time workers are less likely to qualify for employer-provided insurance. When this happens, they are forced to purchase their own health insurance outside the workplace, which our tax laws discourage through much higher tax burdens. Women are also more likely to switch jobs than men because of care-giving responsibilities, which lead to either a complete loss of benefits or, at the least, a significant decrease of benefits.

Kim Strassel, editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal and co-author of NCPA's book Leaving Women Behind, points out that "our major economic institutions – including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies – were designed for families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse. By comparison, they punish every other arrangement."

The National Center for Policy Analysis has long recognized this need of the modern workforce. Are there solutions to fix this problem so that women can save for retirement, just as easily as men? Absolutely! We need to update tax and labor laws so that they are applicable to today's working people. We need to, at the minimum:

• Allow part-time workers to accept lower wages in exchange for health care benefits;
• Create a level playing field under the tax law so that people that purchase health insurance on their own obtain just as much tax relief as people who get health insurance through their employer; and
• Create portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs.

Why can't we allow these women to have portability, security, and flexibility now?! You tell me!

Family and social burdens come with an aging population and comparatively fewer young workers. There is virtually no legal restriction on the ability of people to acquire long-term care insurance with pretax dollars at work. For people who must buy insurance outside the workplace, however, tax breaks are stingier.            

Because Medicare does not cover most long-term care, seniors must provide for their own needs, or exhaust their assets to qualify for Medicaid.

Because women are more than twice as likely as men to experience a long stint in a nursing home, this is a "women's issue/human rights issue."

Four states allow seniors to protect assets against Medicaid by buying insurance, but Congress has prevented similar arrangements in the other 46 states.

Why can't we have a level playing field?  People who save for retirement, purchase health insurance, long-term care insurance and/or day care should receive just as much tax relief as people who obtain those benefits at work!

And what about portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs?

Why can't everyone protect assets by buying long-term care insurance, using Medicaid only for catastrophic costs?

Beyond expressions of sympathy or empathy, what are the respective positions of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain on these issues?

You tell me…