Debra wrote:
"I especially like the information about the benefit to families. I didn't
realize
that. It's obviously a complex program and the idea of it being turned into a
money-making venture for the wealthy bankers to the detriment of hard-working
wage earners sickens me".
Yes, in addition to "Old Age" benefits to workers and to 'non-working'
spouses, Social Security (OASDI - Old Age, Survivors and Disability
Insurance) provides income benefits to workers, spouses and children in the
event of the worker's death or disability prior to retirement age, which
cannot be replicated with individual accounts. Now these other programs could
be funded with part of the tax going to individual accounts, of course, which
is what is being proposed, I believe. Also, there are transition rules
proposed to take care of those who will not have time to develop individual
accounts of substance by retirement age. But this does not cover two key
points:
1. The "progressive" or "socialist" aspect of the program I described
earlier would disappear, which modest 'socialist' bent currently takes some
of the sting out of certain economic problems we have with the really low
paid in our high-priced society, and
2. The social insurance value (whereby the actuarial gain arising from
those who die before they receive benefits equal to the taxes they put in is
spent on those who live longer than expected) is lost, with the remaining
accounts of those who die transferred at death to their direct heirs - in
some cases, the state ? - instead. This dissipation of funds increases the
overall social costs of the program. And, those who live to an old age are
likely to outlive the accounts they built up. Not a sound idea, really.
Yes, we are agreeing on this issue. I guess not all of us are all bad ;-)
Conservative Grandpa Bob S
