faustus (01/23/83)
Phil Ngai claims that "the elderly have too much political power",
and "feel they deserve" their SS benefits. He thinks that those
currently recieving benefits should recieve what they paid in,
and nithing more. It would be really nice if we could do this. The
whole Social Security system is unwieldy and unworkable, given the
present situation. This much is obvious. But what of the millions
of elderly people who depend on SS for their incomes? We must
keep in mind that whatever we do about the SS system, these people
and their welfare must be foremost in our minds. They worked many
years, most never managing to save any large amount of money, what
little they did save quickly spent as soon as they retired. Of
course, they counted on the SS system to help them out in their
old age. And it does, now, to an extent: it is possible to live
on $200 a month, although not easy. What would happen to them
if we were to suddenly eliminate the SS system? As far as I can
see, the only possible way to deal with this is to continue
payments to those currently recieving them, refunding all the
funds that have been put into the system by those that are still
working, and discontinuing the system after this. This would cost
a lot, to be sure, but the most humane and thorough way of resolving
a problem is never cheap. This would be a much better use of the
$however-many-billion defense budget for this year than the
military (but that's another issue entirely)..
-Wayne Christopher
faustus@berkeley
ucbvax!faustuspn (01/23/83)
Wayne Christopher, I can appreciate the practical need to continue the Social Security system. However, it is still true that my income is being transfered to people who didn't have the foresight to plan for their retirement. To me, that seems to be rewarding irresponsibility, in the same way Chrysler was bailed out. Fine, the elderly do need income. But they should be given just barely enough to live on. This country is trying to encourage people to save (All-savers, etc) and invest (capital gains, investment tax credits, etc) and people who didn't do that while they were working shouldn't be so comfortable on SS that they don't mind not having any savings to draw on. Also, people shouldn't be encouraged to depend on SS when they retire, and I think Washington is moving in this direction with the new tax laws and IRAs. The other point, which you didn't address at all, is that the elder are
bernie (01/25/83)
There is no question that sooner or later the social security system
will break down entirely; it's only a question of whether we close it down
in a controlled fashion *now*, or delay the inevitable until some later
date when the consequences will be far worse. Things are *not* going to
get any better, and the only practical solution is to
1. Stop putting any more money into a system that's about to fold.
2. Use whatever money is in the system now to help as many of the
elderly who are currently dependent on s.s. as possible.
3. Encourage people to take the money they would have spent on their
social security payments, and use it instead to help support their
elderly relatives (this should be stricly voluntary of course)
There will be some hardship for some people, mostly those with no offspring
to help support them. However, better that than far greater hardship ten
or fifteen years down the line. It's sad, but there literally is no other
solution. The money in the s.s. system already should be enough to help out
those s.s. recipients who can *verify* that they have no living relatives who
can contribute to their support.
--Bernie Roehl
...decvax!utzoo!watmath!watarts!berniebernie (01/25/83)
...further to the above, some people are curious "who's to blame" for the social security mess. The fact is, no one person or organization is at fault; it's the very *idea* of social security. If people were responsible enough to save up for their old age on their own, there'd be no problem; the trouble is, the government has taken that responsibility away from people and allowed them to become dependent on goverment support. Forcing people to retire at 65 aggravates the problem even more; it increases the average length of time that someone is unproductive and hence dependent on the government.
hickmott (01/26/83)
For some reason, when I think of the social security system, I can't help thinking of all those recent 'Pyramid swindles,' the ones that basically resembled chain letters, but didn't involve the mails (or the federal regulations involving mail fraud.) Not afraid to make random, pointless observations over the net, -Andy Hickmott ...decvax!yale-comix!hickmott
spotter (01/28/83)
#R:amd70:-133800:tekcad:7600008:000:405
tekcad!spotter Jan 27 19:04:00 1983
Yes, social security does closely resemble a pyramid scheme.
Do you think we could get the US Governments permission to sue
them for operating a pyramid scheme? (Yes, you do need the
federal governments permission to sue the federal government).
Steve Potter
CSnet: spotter@tek
ARPAnet: spotter.tek@rand-relay
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!spottermmt (01/29/83)
I can't understand these people who claim the Social Security system is now or must soon break down. They seem to think that a dollar now invested means a dollar later returned. They forget that money is just a way of lubricating the exchange of goods and services. Some people work and make things that other people want. The social question is how to distribute these things. If people between 20 and 70 work and make things, then they have to find ways of getting those things to people younger than 20 and older than 70. If the working force is smaller, then a higher proportion of "their" money must be used to try to get things to those who don't work. This interacts with the "micro-processor revolution" which makes it easier for fewer people to make more things, just as increases in farm productivity made it possible for fewer people to feed the rest of us. There's no way around the fact that productive people have to dispose of their product to unproductive people. All the rest of the argument hinges around your moral and ethical approach to the world. If you really believe "I am the world; no-one owes me anything and I owe nothing to anybody", then go to it. Don't accept electricity from the power station, or food from a farmer, or love from a parent or child. If you look at our world now, there are very few productive people. How productive is a stockbroker, a waiter, an entertainer, or a shopkeeper? Only a few farmers and a lot of assembly-line workers are really productive, and the latter group are worried they may lose their jobs as did the farmers earlier this century. What do other people do? They serve each other and the productive workers, each in their own way. So do old people, if you let them. They provide wisdom and experience, and their love of the world. Isn't that worth paying for? Please stop claiming that the Social Security system must break down because you are now paying into it a few dollars that someone else is taking out. Martin Taylor
upstill (01/31/83)
Observing the discussion of Social Security is interesting because
the issue is so dry it's like neutral grey: it brings out everybody's
political point of view. I'd like to disturb the rhetoric for a moment
with a few observations. My wife is an actuary, so I have a little
second-hand authority.
First, it is a perfect misconception that Social Security is a
pension fund. It is now and always has been what is known in the trade
as a pay-as-you-go system: There is no sense of an "account" paid into
by each worker, of vesting AT ALL. There is a "crisis" right now because
the time-summed excess of revenue over expenses is approaching zero.
Now there are at least three good, solid reasons for this which are
completely independent of the viability of socialism:
1) There are now much fewer workers paying into the system in proportion
to the number of people drawing out of the system. This is in part
attributable to lower birth rates, and in part to:
2) People are now living much longer than they used to. If I
remember right, several decades ago the expected survival of a Social
Security recipient was five years, and it is now twelve.
3) Indexing Social Security to the Consumer Price Index. While it
is obviously a good idea to shelter the old/helpless from the ravages of
inflation, there is at least good evidence that CPI is an inappropriate
index: its accuracy is disputable, but it also heavily reflects the
cost of housing, which is a cost which we might expect many older people
to have stabilized. The result of the increases in benefits is that on
the average a worker draws benefits equal to his working contributions
in less than two years after retirement.
Them's the facts, folks. Make of them what you will
Steve
~s Social Security mythsdag (02/02/83)
I admit it. I'm to blame for the foul state of the SSS. (Social Security
System )
All flames to decvax!void!null!here!there!up!down!spin!charm!rhea!rune
Daniel Glasser
:-)
PS: I'm also to blame for the economy, the war in Afganistan and
the fall of the Roman Empire.
:-) :=> dee (02/02/83)
But "forced" retirement at 65 is going away and already has for Federal employees. The funny thing about SS is not that its a welfare system, we have many of those and they pay the currently needed from taxes on those currently not so needy, its that SS is such a system carefully designed to look like a pension system (where you finance your own benefits). Donald Eastlake (decvax!cca!dee)