Re: Question on Charity

["James Barnett" <jbarnett@columbus.rr.com>]

>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)?

Social security means that. It should be designed to assist those needing
security while safeguarding against the rampant fraud that currently exists.
It should be thought of as a retirement. The benefits should not be
determined based on the amount a person contributes. The way the system
works and the general perception is that people say I contributed $200,000
over 20 years therefore I should be entitled to a greater amount than
someone who contributed only $50,000 over the same period. It seems logical
for a "retirement system" but not a system for "social security"

If the purpose is "defined and limited" than the cost should be reduced.
There is a strong argument that it is the state's responsibility for the
social security of it's residents - not the federal.

Charity and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security
system. Both are far more efficient in caring out this role.

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?

This is complete nonsense. People fail to plan. The baby boomers are the
worst. They are fortunate that the stock market has allowed some of them to
accumulate some savings for retirement.

The problem with the present system is that it is grossly regressive. Short
of allowing the states to provide social security which I favor, but the
federal bureaucrats don't; I would favor the funds to pay for a true social
security system (above) to be generated from the general revenue tax of the
federal government subject to all taxable earnings.

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?

It cannot be the solution with the current environment. Government (fed,
state, local, income, property, sales, excise, estate) confiscates too much
now for people to fully give to those charities. The federal politicians
whoever is in power will never relinqish the power they have with the
current social security system.

Thank You for your consideration

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Carlitz <bob@giotto.info-ren.org>
To: ndss-participants@network-democracy.org
<ndss-participants@network-democracy.org>
Cc: ndss@network-democracy.org <ndss@network-democracy.org>
Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 6:04 PM
Subject: Question on Charity


> QUESTION ON CHARITY
>
>
>Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both >
>
>
>Bob Carlitz, moderator
>Information Renaissance
>
>