National Dialogue |
General Discussion |
|
Author Index |
|
In one of the faqs, copied below, the laudable Social Security achievement of reducing poverty rate among elderly is cited. Yet, more children live in poverty today than do elderly. While this does not diminish the achievements Social Security has made in terms of reducing elderly poverty rates, I believe any reforms made to Social Security should attempt to equalize the relative poverty rates between children and elderly, or, at the very least be neutral to children.
Given the demographic shift occurring, with fewer young workers and more aging retirees, greater burden borne by young families in the form of higher Social Security wage deductions will only exacerbate child poverty levels. Additionally, elderly have the powerful AARP lobby; children have much less political organization and power. We must not lose their voice in this debate.
Lisa
If Social Security were eliminated, and people took that money and invested in IRAs, etc., what would be the impact on elderly poverty levels compared with the estimate of how many elderly would be on poverty if Social Security was eliminated without saving and investing that money? Social Security has reduced the poverty rate for older Americans from 35% to 11% over the last 40 years. Every year, Social Security is the most important source of income to the elderly. It is the strongest and most universal "leg" of the so-called "retirement stool". About two-thirds of the aged receive more than half their income from Social Security. A privatized system places the burden on individuals for the management and outcomes of their investment upon which they will derive their retirement income.
begin:vcard n:Furia;Lisa M. x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr;dom;quoted-printable:;;2380 California Street=0D=0ASuite 401;San Francisco;CA;94115; org:Health Odyssey version:2.1 email;internet:lfuria@earthlink.net title:Principal x-mozilla-cpt:;0 tel;work:415.441.8903 fn:Lisa M. Furia end:vcard