From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:02:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.145455.4336@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>Yes, but can I go to my annuity holder and ask them to regularly add
>a COLA to it because inflation is killing me?

Nope.  But that certainly doesn't mean such an arrangement couldn't
be made if the annuity writer agreed to it in advance and made allowances
in the funding of the annuity and investment of their funds to provide
for a cost of living increase.

>Sounds like SS is meant to be all things to all people, a common
>criticism of Democrats, in which case I've got to wonder, why are
>you defending it?

I'm =not= defending Social Security.  I am simply refuting the claim
that Social Security benefits the rich over the poor, or that Social
Security isn't going to be around in 30 or 40 years.  Social Security
benefits the poor in favor of the rich, by design no less.  As for
"being around" in 30 or 40 years, unless the government decides to
waste even more money in the program, it is being funded well enough
to be around when I reach retirement age.

>Another way of looking at this is:  suppose that you DO decide to
>retire and collect SS - you'll collect less of what you paid in, while
>the previous generation (your dad as an example) will have collected
>more than they paid in.  Does that bother you?

Aside from the fact that this is a false statement, yes, it would
bother me.

Here are some facts.  If you were born in 1928, there is a 32% chance
that you are dead.  There is a 50% chance that you will be dead in
7 years.  If you get TWICE as much as you put in, that's OK.  Half
the people are DEAD and won't be collecting anything.

Does it bother you that you haven't collected benefits for a heart
attack on your health insurance?  Some of the people covered by your
policy have.  Isn't that unfair?  Shouldn't we abolish health
insurance?

>Is this the same John F. Haugh II who complains mightily about his
>tax dollars going to support people without jobs?  What do you
>think the folks on SS are?

Being screwed?

Yes, Social Security needs to be abolished.  We need to do this today.
But you need to stop pretending that an annuity program which pays
money to people who've paid in is "unfair" because some people will
receive more than they paid into it.  Perhaps when you start complaining
that some people who pay for car insurance never get to make claims
because they are good drives, then I'll take you seriously.

>                                       Since you don't ever expect to
>see a dime of your SS tax, do you consider this amount when you
>calculate how much tax you've contributed to Uncle Sam each year (not
>for tax purposes, just for an idea of how much you're supporting the
>US?)

Yes.  I calculate every year the amount of money I've paid in total
taxes.  I've been doing it for several years.  I usually then translate
that into how much I could have done with that money - usally in terms
of "college educations provided" or "mortgages paid off."  Last year
my wife and I paid something like $45K in total taxes.

>Are you saying that you'd be quiet about if SS was being funded by the
>investments of payments in from the past, not relying on current
>payments in to keep the system afloat?  If so, guess what?  We agree!

Actually, I have one and only one objective.  The dissolution of Social
Security.

>The idea that present payments from workers is being used to maintain
>income for retired workers is what I've been bitching about all along.

Having the current generation of workers fund the previous generations
retirees is NOT a bad idea, per se.  Nor is it even a bad idea to raise
the retirement age as the life expectancy increases.  What is a BAD
idea is the political games that are played with Social Security to use
it as a vote buying tool.  For example, I think that an increase in
Social Security taxes should be matched by a corresponding decrease in
Social Security benefits.

>If those current retirees were being supported by a huge pot filled
>with payments and investment income from the past, I wouldn't be
>bitching, even if each and every retiree was bringing more than I make
>a year.  Why?  Because it would be their money, carefully invested and
>allowed to grow.  But the reality today is that it's not their money -
>it's ours.

Again, this does not matter.  Many financial institutions operate on a
"pay as you go" business.  For example, does it bother you that the
life insurance benefits provided to someone who dies today aren't paid
out of the premiums that they paid in over the last 72 years?  Or are
you happy knowing that EACH YEARS deaths are paid for out of EACH
YEARS premiums and that the invested reserves only act to lower the
required premiums for NEXT YEARS policy holders?  I have life insurance
with the oldest life insurance company in this country.  They are not
only still in business, but they are one of the most stable life
insurance companies in the world.  And - they don't pay your death
benefit or retirement annuity using the same dollars you put it.  They
pay it using money they received THIS YEAR.  My premiums have already
been given to someone else.  It's so UNFAIR!
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics