Re: DAILY SUMMARY April 22

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

WFurst,

Please read my post I just sent. It provides what I believe is 
a balanced view of the problem with the current system.

<<<<
Given the wide disparities in income and in earning power and in investment 
opportunities in our country, it seems essential for society to provide a 
firm floor in income for the elderly and for those unable to work. 
>>>>

Wouldn't a good solution to the problem of disparity be to provide
more access to investment as you indicate as a problem here?
A private system offers access to investment. Isn't this a good 
thing?

<<<
In fact it is nothing but an 
unconscionable grab for public funds by those who with high incomes and 
better education at the expense of the vast majority that desperately needs 
(even when it does not recognize it) the protection that social insurance 
provides.
>>>

The "public" funds were once private. Before they were confiscated.

The tried and true class warfare game, expertly used by the Democrats.
Why should high earners have to pay for the low wage earners?
Wouldn't a better solution be to enable low wage earners to become 
stakeholders and perhaps even become "wealthy"?

<<<
The privatizers set up a specious alternative. There is nothing in the social 
security system that precludes private savings or that makes it uninteresting 
for potential beneciaries. The paucity of social insurance benefits act as a 
major incentives for private savings.
>>>

I'm drawing a picture here. What you are saying is that if you 
are smart enough to invest for yourself, fine. But if you don't
you will be tied to system which will make you feel better because
it confiscates from those who have done well. What about enabling
everyone to do better?

<<<
More importantly, 
this argument completely ignores the vast payments  made by the system to the 
young, the widowed and the disabled. If these insurance risks are integrated 
into the calcuation, the return may be better that other investments 
available to average people.
>>>

As a society, how much are you willing to pay for this insurance.
Currently, we are paying over 12% of the entire payroll of the country
to fund this program which benefits very few people. Does the
needs of the the few people who encounter bad luck overrun the
needs of the many who want a real retirement system? We can
satisfy both needs, probably with the same or less money than
we currently spend.

You will find almost no one on the reform side who wants to eliminate
the insurance guarantees of the current system. The vast majority
of people never use the insurance. Should they be trapped in a
poor retirement system because of the needs of a few?

Michael