From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:29:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1993Jan3.014904.3236@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>If you had a coronary today and have received all of your premiums
>back, because having a coronary is such a rare occurance, would you
>be demanding to continue to receive your health insurance checks,
>even though you hadn't consumed the entire policy limit?

Ummm, I don't think there's a built in limit in my HMO; a better
analogy would be auto liability - you get sued for $1 Mil and all
you're covered for is 300K, they, yes, you're in hock $700K.

I'm currently paying into a 401K for my retirement; if I figure I'll be
retired for 8 years before dying, and draw from it accordingly when I
retire, and end up living more than 8 years, I screwed myself, if
there's no money in the fund, I'm not going to get any.

It's my contention that SS is like my 401K, it seems that it's yours
that it's like my HMO.  Currently it doesn't matter which one of is
right since we're paying out anyway, rich or poor.


>>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?
>
>You are giving the same line about how Social Security is welfare for
>the rich and complaining that people who own their own homes don't
>deserve to benefit from a system which they helped fund.

No, a) I'm giving you the line that SS is welfare for the _old_ (rich
or poor) and b) I was responding to your claim that 10K in income
didn't sound rich.  It is MHO that 26K/year (10K - taxes on it + 18K in
SS benefits), while not in Donald Trump's league, is hard to justify as
living uncomfortably, much less, poor.


>I'd say that attitude is certainly indicative of someone who suffers
>from extreme class envy, as well as someone who wants to punish people
>for being good money managers.  Unlike you, I don't care how much
>wealth a person has.  All I care about is how much they put in and
>how much they are taking out.  Based on the wealthy people's ability
>to manage money, I'd say the poor shouldn't get shit and the wealthy
>should get everything.  But that's just me - I think people should be
>rewarded based on demonstrated abilities, not political favoritism.

John, John, John, listen to yourself.  Do you really think that I say
to myself, "Man, I really wish that we'd raise taxes on households
making more than $200K/year (or 30K, or 40K, or 50K, or whatever) so
that if I ever get to that point, I can pay more taxes, cuz if there's
anything I want to do in life, it's pay taxes."?  Guess what John?
Believe it or not, I like money, and I want to earn (and keep) more of
it.  When I look at my paystub and see how much I've paid in income and
SS taxes year to date at the end of the year, I even bitch and moan
about it.  In fact, I probably bitch and moan more than you because I
do think that I'll never see a dime of SS when I retire, while what
you're complaining about is that you'll see less than a guy making
20K/year.

I think that you've got this idea that I want to "screw" the rich, not
because I do, but because I don't cry crocodile tears when the rich do
get screwed.  But guess what?  That's human nature.  I'm sure that if I
_was_ making 200K/year, it'd be real personal if I was paying a higher
rate than some guy making 20K.  By the same token, when your son is
born, and you're feeling on top of the world, I will wish you the best,
but it won't _personally_ make my day.


>So, let me ask you this one straightforward question.  Given that it
>is very unlikely that Social Security is going to be abolished, do
>you favor cutting back on benefits to people who, because they planned
>better for their own retirement, now find themselves with some amount
>of accumulated wealth?  Or should FICA contributions be the only
>deciding factor in FICA distributions?

I think a) if it currently isn't SS should be like my 401K (i.e., after
you exhaust "your" account, that's it), and b) EVERYONE gets paid out
at the same rate regardless of accumulated wealth (i.e. I'm _agreeing_
with you (imagine that) that in your previous example, the poor guy
getting 0.67 back on what he had paid in while the rich get 0.43 is
unfair).

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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics