From: Richard Arsinow <richard.arsinow@rauland.com>
Subject: Thanks, Don and Dorothy
Thanks, Don and Dorothy, for speaking up. Tell your friends to speak up. Everyone, tell your Congressman. Congress needs to hear from more Social Security recipients that there was a lot of false advertising about how Social Security would work.
Many of your comments bear repeating:
"All I ask is that I get the money back that I put into the system all of my working years at a nominal amount of interest for the fact that the government had my money all these years."
"Social Security was never advertised as a wellfare system, but rather as a savings plan, so that people who can't or wouldn't save would have something in their old age."
"Any form of means testing removes the fairness from the system. Fairness to me is that you get back in proportion to what you put in."
"I fully support those who have said "those of us that have been prudent and saved over the last 30 or 40 years should not now be penalized for that saving and take away what we put into the system because we have other income based on the savings and not spending all of every paycheck each week."
Bravo! Please tell others to speak up as you have.
As you continue to read these postings, I think that you will find that those who advocate "saving" or "strengthening" Social Security are the ones who suggest means testing. They also wish to continue a benefit structure which pays back at lower and lower percentages to those who contribute more and more to the system. Such a benefit structure leads to "redistribution" of the funds away from those who contribute more and toward those who contribute less. They also place great importance on Social Security's "safety net" and try to downplay the disparity between the way Social Security has treated past generations and the way it treats today's workers and will treat future generations.
Others feel that the system has fundamental flaws and therefore should not and cannot successfully be "saved". They think that current benefits should be maintained without any form of means testing, and that a new program featuring individual accounts should be set up. During a transition, workers would be given the option of staying with Social Security or receiving credit for all of their past contributions and switching to the new system. Payroll deductions would remain at the same level, with around 81% of the money deducted going into that individual's account, to grow for retirement. Those funds and their earnings over time would be the property of the worker. The remainder of the money deducted, around 19%, would finance current Social Security benefits for retirees. The "insurance" aspects of Social Security would be handled as follows: There would be a minimum retirement annuity. No participant would be allowed to retire with less. Workers would be required to purchase disability insurance and coverage for dependents in the event of a worker's premature death, using funds from their individual accounts. Because these would be huge group policies and more than one company would be allowed to compete, the cost should be low as compared to individual policies. Current benefits for dependents and disability retirees would continue, but the cost of these would be shifted away from the retirement program to a program funded by general revenues. It is important to note that the investment of the individual accounts need not be any more risky than the way the current Social Security trust fund is invested. Workers would have the option of investing in Treasury securities. No one would be forced to invest those retirement funds in the stock market, but that option would be available to those workers who would like it. It is also expected that, as Social Security benefits dwindle and the transition becomes complete, the payroll deduction used to finance them could either be reduced or the proportion allocated to individual accounts could be raised. Also, because the funds in the individual accounts would belong to the workers, they could be inherited in the case of a worker's untimely death, and used to help fund the retirement of the worker's heirs. A retiree's marital status and spouse's financial situation would have no bearing.
Please, Don and Dorothy, read as much as you can about the proposals being made. There are a lot of mistaken notions about what Social Security really is now and about all of the well-thought-out features which are being proposed as a part of privatization. I think that you would favor much of what is being proposed by the so-called "privatizers". If so, please tell your Congressman.
