The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-04-19

ouA uAASC' HANhVS AASuIAL1CS oOC6 DOl
 require that everyone who con.
 tributes shall sometime derive ben.
 efltS. Only those who are affected
 by the contingency insured against
 got benefits. If you take out fire
 insurance, you do not expect to gel
 your premiums back just because
 you don't have fire.
 As an example of the failure oi
 some people to understand the sig.
 nificance of the changes made in thi.
 insurance plan by Congres let ma
 tell you of letter that reached tho
 Bureau of Old-Age and Survivor.
 Insurance in Washington not lons
 ago. It came from a young woman
 who wanted to know "how come",
 to her mind the determination oi
 benefits didn't look fair. Of course
 we can't use her real name so lets
 call her Miss Johnson.
 She cited the case of MT. Brown
 and Miss Jones, who worked with her
 in the same office, and who had been
 there since January 1, 1897, when
 the original old-age insurance plan
 went into effect. She pointed out
 that MT. Brown, at the beginning of
 1887 was 59 years old, and Miss Jones 48. She gave her own age as 34. The salaries of the three had not changed. Browns salary was $250, Miss Jones' $200 and her own $50. Miss Johnson pointed out that when MT. Brown is 65 years old, his earn- ingS will have amounted to $18,OOO, and that he will have paid taxes of $180; Miss Jones upon reaching the age of 65 will have earned $40 800 and will have paid a tax of $828; her own earnings when she gets to be 65 will amount to $55, 300, and her tax payments will total $1,377.
 Miss Johnson then pointed out that under the original law she would have been entitled to month ly insurance payment of $54.5O a month; MT. Brown, $27.5O, and Miss Jones, $46.50.
 But under the plan now in effect the values of the insurance payments of the three are considerably diff ferent. MT. Brown would be receiv- ing a monthly payment of $42.5O in- stead of $27.50; Miss Jones, $4O.95 instead of $465O; and Miss Johnson, $39.30 instead of $54.5O, inspite of the fact that her earnings would be greater than those of either MT. Brown or Miss Jones, and that she had paid lot more in taxes.
 How can such obvious unfairness possibly be justified?" Miss Johnson asked in her letter. "Why does MT. Brown, who has paid only $180, re- ceive the largest pension? Why must I, on a far smaller salary, pay seven and three-fourths times as much tax as MT. Brown and still receive lower benefit?"
 Now there is no doubt that other people are thinking along the very same lines. You might like to know the answer sent to Miss Johnson by the Social Security board. have a copy of the letter here. Let me read part or It 10 you.
 T think" said the official of the board who replied to Miss Johnson, T may presume that you live in community which provides 8 public school system. Because of the pub- hc-school system is well established in this country, most of us accept 1t as a matter of fact. If we consider some of the fundamental reasons for the existence and objectiveS of such a system, I think we might easily agree on certain points. First, 1t is in the interest of the community as well as the individual children who receive the benefit of education, that all the, children in the community receive an opportunity for education. Second, the family unit, which we might expect to be most interested In the education of children, would be unable, in the large majority of cases, to pay for this education. To provide this education it is essential to spread the cost over all the mem bers of the community. Third, the does not attempt to pro- vide complete education for every child. This would be too expensive even on a community basis. Hence, the public-school system supplies only basic minimum of educational opportunity. The family, or individ- lal, may supplement this public ed- lcation with private education along other lines while the child is in pulp lie school, or with further occupa- tonal or professional training after the child leaves the public-school system.
 "The fundamental reasons and ob- Jectives of the old-age and survivors insurance program are, to a certain | extent, analogous to those of the public-school system. It is the in- terest of the community as a whole | that, when an individual is no longer able to secure employment and thus support himself because he has grown old, there should be available to him a monthly income which he can feel is rightfully his because he has served the community as well IS her employer during his working lifetime. It is in the interest of the because the prospect of such an income gives the workers in the community a sense of security and confidence and because the pay ment of this income relieves the community of substantial part of the problem of providing relief to the needy.
 "An attempt has been made in the Social Security act to establish a scale of benefits which will meet at least the minimum needs for food, clothing and shelter for the ma jority of workers and their families who are protected by the program. It is expected that this will serve as 3 foundation of security from actual want upon which most individual workers will be able to build their Individual programs for meeting their own peculiar personal needs and desires.
 'In the case of the public-educa- tion system some families will re-