The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1950-07-13

conference committee of the Sen
ate and House is working on rival
versions of The 1880 social secur-
ity law" passed by the two cham
bers of Congress.
When the committee finally irons
out the differences, the agreed
upon draft viii go back to both
chambers for approval and then to.
the White House for the Pres
ident's signature.
Whatever the ultimate version,
it will be great advance over the
existing Social Security Act, first
put ON the statute books in 1885,
but it will still be short of the kind
of improvements favored by organ
lied labor.
What do the proposed changes
mean to you? Very much. Benefits
on the average will go up about 70
to 80 percent. Qualifications for
benefits will be considerably liber-
allied. Protection will be extended
to another to IL million persons.
Minimum primary" benefits-for
single beneficiaries-will go up
from $40 to $25 a month; maxi
mum family benefits from $85 to
$3.50 a month.
For those now on retirement
rolls, the overage primary" bene-
fit-that is, for a single insured
worker, or one whose wife is under
65-will go up from S26 to $40 a
month under the Senate bill, and to
S44 under the House measure.
That's still mighty low compared
with current living costs.
For those going on the rolls in
the future, average benefits will be
about double. Under the Senate
formula you would get so percent
of your first $100 Of average mon
thly wage while you were in Gov
cred" employment, plus Is percent
of the next 5000. Under the House
bill you would get so percent of
the first 500, plus 10 percent of
the next $500, plus one-half per-
cent increase for each year you are
paying taxes in the system.
The Senate version works out to
be better for those retiring in the
next 10 years; the House version
would be better thereafter.
Now let's take some sample
cases TO see what retirement bene-
fits would be:
Suppose you're worker who has
paid social security taxes under
the system for 10 straight years.
IL your average monthly wage dur
ing that time was $100, you'd get
$27.50 under the present law;
S52.50 under the House version,
Z and $50 under the Senate version.
This would go up according to
your wage bracket If your average
monthly earnings were $500 you'd
get $44 under the present law,
$73.50 under the House bill, $50
under the Senate version.
If your wife is also over 65, an
other one-half Of your benefits
would be added under either the
Senate or House bill. Dependent
parents would get an additional
three-fourths under the House bill,
but 80 per cent under the Senate
bill.
The House bill would permit re-
tired workers wives under the age
of 65 to draw an extra 80 percent
in benefits if they had children in
their care, while the Senate bill,
as in existing law, would make
benefits payable to the wife only
after she reaches 65.
Under the House bill, your bene-
fits would go up. with years of COW
erage, though not very substantial
ly. After 40 years the primary"
benefit under this version would
range from $50 a month for per-
sons who had 800 monthly average
earnings to $84 in the case of a
$500 earning level. Under the Sen
ate bill the range would be from
$50 to $50, with no increase for
years in the system. In the pre-
sent law, it's $35 to $50.
Married persons and widows with
dependents will find a substantial
improvement even after relatively
few years of coverage in the sys-
TEN. Thus, suppose you retire and
have a wife over 65. Together,
after you have been in the system
five years you would get $77 a
month under the House bill if your
earnings averaged $l00 a month,
and SIS under the Senate bill, com
pared with $50 under existing law,
This would go up with earnings,
reaching $10S a month under the