Protecting present retirees

["Marv. Rohrs" <rohrsm@asme.org>]

In reviewing the various comments, I find nothing regarding the 
benefits of  present retirees other than "protecting them", which 
is a broad statement.  In any reforming of Social Security, there
must be strong protection against the constant "tinkering" with 
current benefits that has recently been occurring.  Current
retirees have had their benefits repeatedly compromised in 
recent years -- first by taxing up to 50% of benefits above an 
arbitrarily set (and unrealistically low) total "income" limit, 
and then extending the taxable amount up to 85%.  That income 
limit does not even follow the precedent set by the income tax 
code of allowing deductions for medical expenses (which can be  
huge) before arriving at taxable income.  In arriving at the 
taxable amount of SS, it doesn't matter if one has $5,000 per 
year medical expenses or $50,000 -- the taxable amount of SS 
benefits is the same for both; the amount of medical expenses 
just doesn't enter into the equation.  But yet high medical 
expenses can quickly reduce an income to below the threshold 
income at which the benefits become taxable under the current 
rules.

The rules regarding the cost of living adjustment (COLA) have 
also been changed by using a new cost of living index that yields 
lower numbers, even though the previous cost of living index did
not even realistically reflect the true cost of living for 
retirees.  This is what happens when the politicians start 
playing with the rules without being subject to those same rules
themselves -- the rules become unrealistic.

During most of the working years of people in my age group (I'm 
74) we didn't have IRA's or 401k's and, if we worked for a 
company that had a retirement plan, we weren't even allowed to
set up a retirement plan of our own.  If we left the company, we 
lost everything.  As a result, we had to save for our retirement
with after-tax dollars, scrimping and saving (instead of 
spending it on luxuries) so that we could plan on a somewhat 
comfortable retirement.  We now pay a penalty for forgoing those 
luxuries -- income from our savings increases the amount of SS 
benefits that are subject to income tax.  When we were planning 
and saving for retirement, SS benefits were not subject to any 
income tax at all.

In any restructuring of Social Security, the less involvement 
the Government has in it the better.  When the Government gets 
involved in something, the efficiency of implementation goes 
down and the cost skyrockets.  The amount of current SS benefits
is a perfect example -- if contributions made by us and our 
employers had been invested, we would have much higher benefits 
than we currently have.  I believe that the only way to provide 
for the retirement of present workers is to allow them to invest
a large amount of their contributions in securities -- with 
proper controls to prevent risky investments, but not rules that
are designed to "redistribute wealth" as so much of our present
rules deliberately do.  Those who contributed the maximum amount 
over their careers receive far less proportionately than those 
who contributed less, yet they are the ones whose benefits are 
being taxed.