RE: What "values" created the existing system?

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<
2. The present system is sustainable, contrary to his assertion.
It has lasted for 65 years and with some appropriate and prudent
changes can last indefinitely. The main change needed is a gradual,
well-planned schedule of increases in the normal retirement age to
keep life expectancies at retirement constant- such a change would
not reduce the value of Social Security retirement but would keep
it from steadily increasing. One such schedule involves increasing
the retirement age by two months every year, reaching 70 in 2037
and 75 in 2074.
>>>

To suggest that the current system is sustainable is technically
true, since the government could reduce benefits (by increasing 
the retirement age, more means testing, etc.) or increase taxes
further to force solvency. The real question is can the system 
be maintained under the current tax/benefit structure. 
The answer clearly is no.

But ask yourself, how much are you willing to pay for
a system that will not be able to fund a reasonable benefit?
Are you willing to forgo any of your own benefit? Are you
willing to pay higher taxes to sustain this system?

<<<
Private employers who have installed pension plans for their
employees almost invariably give past service credit for service
prior to the installation of the plan.  In the case of Social
Security, this decision recognized the years of work prior to 1939;
it also made possible an immediate attack on poverty among the
aged.
>>>

Private employers have all but killed traditional pension plans.
Today's pension plans are really defined contribution plans with
guaranteed rates of return. The day's of defined benefit plans 
(at least in the private sector) are numbered.

<<<
3. The decision in the early years of Social Security to give
retirees of those years benefits larger than those based on their
participation in Social Security was carefully considered and wise.
>>>

This was a poor decision in my opinion. It is difficult to reconcile
the need to help poor retirees with the need to scale benefits
based upon contributions. In my opinion, this is the main failure
of Social Security. If the program were designed purely as a
welfare program I wouldn't ask for a return on my "investment"
since I would know that the program is intended to just help 
poor retirees.

The decision was probably made just to enlist the support of
higher wealth workers. In other words, they wanted their money, so 
they had to promise some benefit in return. 

The program cannot succeed in either goal because the system
cannot satisfy both goals as implemented. A welfare program is 
redistributative. A retirement program requires real assets that
conpound interest.

Either it's a welfare program or its
a retirement program. If you want to accomplish both goals, create
two systems. Unfortunately, the Democrats sell the program as a 
"welfare program" but finance the program as a 
"universal retirement program". Democrats, you can't have it 
both ways. When the bill comes due, what are the Democrats going
to do? What they have always done: take the money from the "rich"
retirees to pay the poor ones. Only this time around (in about
20 years), there won't be enough money to take. All the money
will be gone. In order to keep the promise they are going to have to
take more money from somewhere else.

It's time Americans wised up. No more money for this failure
of a program.

Michael