>>>"Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both charity and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security system."
I believe this lead-in to the questions is a clever "set up" designed to portray those who support a fully-funded system of personal retirement accounts as persons who are willing to leave poor elderly persons subject to an insecure dependency on uncertain private charity and family relations. This is not the case. A properly reformed system of personal retirement accounts would not leave anyone dependent on charity or family. Most privatizers see everyone as being better off under a fully-funded, wealth creation system than we are under the current system - a system that will suck the economic life out of our children and grandchildren. But this is politics, isn't it.
Think of what this lead in assumes. Doesn't it assume that privatizers believe that some people will require "charity" or "family" to survive their elder years? But privatizers don't believe this. Individual's personal retirement accounts will provide sufficient income - far in excess of current [promised] Social Security benefits. And for those RARE occasions where a personal account fails to provide a sufficient retirement income, a privatized Social Security system should have a supplemental benefit. And this supplemental benefit should be FUNDED BY PROGRESSIVE GENERAL FEDERAL TAXES on all taxpayers and not by regressive payroll taxes paid by the middle class and poor that are designed to petrify the existing class structure.
>>>"Question 1. Do you favor a privatized system which eliminates the current system's redistributive benefits formula (which gives relatively higher benefits to lower-income people)?"
This is another set-up question designed to make privatizers look bad. The current system is a "crab bucket" redistribution system. Anyone who has ever caught crabs knows what I mean. When you catch crabs and put them into a bucket to take home, you don't need a lid to keep them in. When one crab tries to climb up and get over the edge, the others grab him with their claws and pull him back in. That's just what Social Security's redistribution system is designed to do. You see, only the poor and middle class are the crabs in the bucket. Only their income is redistributed, because the regressive payroll tax applies only to wages (up to a limited amount) and not to capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, royalties.. So before one of us middle-class crabs is about to make it out of the bucket, Social Security steps in to grab us back down.
>>>"Question 2. Under the present system or some of the proposed alternatives,will some people be forced to choose between food, lodging or medicine in their daily budgets?"
Yes. The current system will cause economic decline and perhaps even collapse if it is not changed. There will not be sufficient resources available even to take care of the needy. The middle class will suffer significant reductions in standards of living. As hokey as it sounds, I want to make sure I have a good garden space available to me when I'm elderly.
>>>"Question 3. Will charitable organizations be able to fill the gap between the needs of the poorest sector of the population and the benefits provided by government programs? Should this be the solution to this problem?"
If the present system is not changed, I do not believe that charitable organizations will be able to fill the gap. The current Social Security system will pull the American economy down with it. Charity cannot save the current Social Security system. Current Social Security will bring the middle class down. Already, many working families are unable to keep out of debt. Their charitable attitude now and in the future will become much more one of "charity beginning at home."
Charity wouldn't be needed in a fully funded system of personal retirement accounts.
