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, 2 Jan 1993 14:27:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.211632.23394@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>At first I did think 10K in income was pretty paltry but consider
>this:  take the 10K minus 20% for taxes which leaves 8K.  Take 1,491
>per month (John's figure from above) * 12 months/year gives you
>$17,892.  Add 8K and you get $25,892, almost 26K/year.  At this point
>folks in the computer biz are probably still saying, "jeez, that's only
>(.25, .5, .75, whatever) of my salary.  I'd hate to get by on only
>26K/year." Don't forget to 1) look at your take home, NOT gross salary
>(there's a big difference between my gross and take home because a) I'm
>paying a shitload in income and SS taxes (aren't we all? :-)) and b)
>I'm taking out 10% for stock purchase); 2) if you are currently paying
>rent or a mortage or making payments on a car, then as Russell pointed
>out, if you've got those paid for, deduct what you're paying from your
>take home - you will have them paid off so you won't need that money;
>3) presumably you won't still be putting the kids through braces and
>college by they time you're 65 or 67 so you can take out the money your
>spending on raising your kids (although I wonder if that will still be
>true in the next decade or so as more and more people wait until their
>30s to have kids...)

Russell's argument, while fun to read and think that it proves something,
only demostrates that the heart of the anti-Social Security argument, as
it is currently being presented, is based on class envy.

Of COURSE I hope to be 65 and have my house and car paid off.  I live
within my means, so I'd like to have my house paid off in the next few
years.  As for my car, I buy high-quality American made cars - again,
I hope they outlast the mortgage.

On the other hand, I work 5 or 6 days a week at my "real" job, plus I
do outside consulting work.  When I'm 67 I'd much rather NOT have to
work at all, and still get to live a nice life.  You know, visit the
relatives in Canada and England, maybe go SCUBA diving someplace I've
never been - actually relax and enjoy the benefits of 55 years of work.

Russell's argument is that I shouldn't be able to do those things with
any "help" from Social Security because my house and car are paid off.
Nonsense.  The new cost of my house (it's in the public tax records if
you care) is a much smaller multiple of my parent's (to give a pretty
typical example) home and income than mine.  Unlike many Americans
that want to own a mortgage, I'd much rather own a HOUSE.  For this,
you, Curt, and Russell want to punish me.

>In fairness to John, though, I will say that I agree with his point
>that the wealthy will be getting screwed 47 years from now when
>they are pulling out less than the poor (as a percentage of what
>they put in).  And as I've said before, we ought to acknowledge SS
>for what is basically is (today), welfare for the old, and what it
>will be 47 years from now, welfare for the old poor.

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.

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.

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 F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics