From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Social Security (Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis)
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:32:37 GMT
            <19468@fritz.filenet.com>
            <1992Aug15.203939.981@ultra.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

This is a shame.  The poster who started the Prop 13 thread was
complaining about how we don't talk about CA.politics.  And here we've
already tangented off to another thread!

Written in article <1992Aug15.203939.981@ultra.com>
 by wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway):

: The Chipmunk writes:
:
:> You should be more concerned about the group 65 and up with average
:> incomes of $67k and up who are collecting Social Security out of
:> YOUR POCKET.
:
: [Scenario where you aren't allowed to remove your 40 year savings
: account]

: I don't know about you, but I've been paying *INTO* Social Security
: for better than 30 years, and I will be very much pissed if somebody
: says I can't have my money back just because I might be lucky enough
: to still have some other income at 65!

Query: have you sat down and computed out exactly how much you've put
into the system?  In 1992 dollars?

I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe that the typical reci-
pient who reaches 65 _today_ will receive back EVERY PENNY PUT IN in a
very few years (FAR less than 10, perhaps even less than 5).  After that 
"magic threshold" is crossed, it's _all_gravy._

Social Security has NEVER been a "retirement savings account."  You've
been misled into believing that it is, but it's actually a "retirement
redistribution scheme."  The money you put "into" the system was paid
out immediately to the retirees of your day, and if you retire today,
your benefits will come directly from today's workers.

It is NOT a govt-sponsored "IRA."  It probably would have worked better
if it were, but it ain't.

When started, each retiree was supported by about 10 workers.  A person
retired, and died soon thereafter, if even lucky enough to have lived
that long.

Today, each is supported by about 3, expected to be 2 by the year 2000.  
Retirees survive well into their 70's and 80's, many having retired
early (55).  This can not last forever.

However, I can perfectly understand your wishing to receive your
benefits.  I've put into the system too, also under the promise of
receiving benefits.  I too would be, well, upset if they cut it off
today.  Social Security is a "promise" of sorts, which many have come to
depend on, so just "turning it off" is probably not a good idea.

Solution?  Phase it out.  As beneficiaries die off, make it easier for
workers to NOT pay into the system, if they don't want to.  (I'd even
accept a mandatory IRA as a compromise, so long as the IRA is under the
contributor/beneficiary's direct control.)  Compute how much a person
has actually paid INTO the system over their working lives, and make it
real difficult to collect more than that amount.  This should ESPECIALLY
be true in cases where there are provable sources of other income.

: Wayne Hathaway

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Politicians lie, but it doesn't matter since voters don't listen.