Yes, many feel that, since they contributed, they should get the benefits. This "lie" is pernicious. All politicians should be stating that the money paid in has already gone out -- and money received by retired folks now is money taxed by current workers. On the other hand, that's also not sooo different than normal banks.
I actually think a 3 pillar program for America might work, too: with a statement of exactly how much each worker has contributed (NO interest? same interest as on US savings bonds?) with that total lump sum being calculated and treated as the first (min benefit) and second pillars. A full second pillar includes forced savings, which becomes the property of the individual. And a third, IRA type optional pillar, which would reduce the basic benefits in some 1:2 proportion. Tom >>> Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism. and FDR sold social security by giving it its own devoted tax and claim that the tax is a "retirement contribution." Millions of Americans view Social Security benefits as their right, not because they see the benefits as socialist redistribution, but rather because they view the benefits as socialist redistribution but rather as the result of their own contirbutions. It's no wonder that the primary beneficiaries of Social Security oppose means-testing. David
