From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:03:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan2.204916.5411@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.142741.1552@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>No, Social Security today is NOT welfare.  The returns on your Social
>>Security "investment" are just as awful today as they were 10 or more
>>years ago - even if you are "rich".  Social Security was never
>>intended to be a "retirement" program - it is supposed to supplement
>>other arrangements for retirement.  As for being "rich", if you made
>>the maximum for the years before they screwed around with the code
>>in the 80's, you'd still get less than the poor people who didn't.
>>And if you have any significant income, you'd get even less still.
>[...]
>>That you get all of your money back in a few years is only a consequent
>>of an average life expectancy of 67 or so back in the 30's and 40's.
>
>John,
>
>If you retired 4 years ago and have received all of your money by
>today, because life expectancy was estimated to be lower 47 years ago
>or because you just happened to live longer or whatever, would you be
>demanding to to continue to receive your SS check?  If not, fine, but
>when I call SS welfare for the old, I do so because of the recipients
>who have received there payin + interest (lousy as it may be) and still
>want it coming, not because "it's their money" (it isn't) but because
>"they're entitled to it".
>
>
>>People who don't own their own home by the time they are 65 do not
>>deserve to get more money than those who exercised self-restraint and
>>managed to actually pay off a mortgage.  Unlike you, I believe money
>>should be given to people based on whether or not they earned the
>>money.  Not based on how poorly they managed their own money.
>
>
>Wow, I've stated in several posts that I think that SS should be
>abolished so folks can sink or swim on there own and now I'm accused of
>trying to do the opposite.  Let me say it again in case you missed it -
>John, I really, really, really do want to you to be able to control how
>you fund your retirement.  If there was legislation in Congress to pay
>out lump sums and phase out SS, I'd call up Pickle, Gramm and Bentsen
>and plead for them to vote for it.  So lay off on the class envy
>crap, ok?
>
>Brendan
>-- 
>Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
>   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.

The problem lies in defining what is equitable in terms of paying
off those who have been paying into the system.  People like John
may well take more out of it than they put in, but they (i.e.
responsible people who worked hard and managed their finances and
also had a degree of good fortune in life) have made their plans
on the expectation that they would receive a certain life income
from Social Security.  The fact is that the existing system *is*
an entitlement, tax funded, whose payout is not directly tied to
the actual value of money you payed in.

This dilemma of how to honor the entitlement while changing over
to a better system (i.e. self directed retirement management,
whether mandatory or not) points to the very nature of the problem
of the Social Security entitlement system.  What you and your employer
pay is a tax.  What you take out of it is an entitlement that can`
be changed at will by Congress.  They can change it for whatever
reason -- to soak you because you are rich in their definition, 
because there is simply no more money, or because they want to 
phase out the system and phase in something else.  They are already
screwing around with us by pushing out the retirement age and
taxing the benefits.  The whole problem of the Leftist Paradise
is that it takes no responsibility for its promises.  It squeezes
whoever it can to pay for them and, when there is nothing else
to squeeze, bends and then finally breaks them.

I say, if you want to reform the system and make things equitable,
make the payoff optional. Let those who want their entitlements have 
them, at least, say, people over forty or fifty.  Hand out lump sums
to everybody else - i.e. those under the cutoff age and those
over it who choose to take the money.  If you want, put it in an 
IRA and even mandate a matched employer-employee contribution of 
some amount in order to "protect" people from themselves.  I bet 
that enough people would accept the money and opt out of SS and 
into a self directed account that we could ease ourselves out of 
this mess and into something more sensible with minimal pain.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)