RE: Red Herring and Widows

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
Here is where the whole
discussion is going, pointing to the greedy working 
male and his non working wife and kids status quo.
If you don't pay into it, why should you get it?
>>>>

What I would hope is that the discussion on this forum
could be more analytical and less emotional. I don't mean
to target this particular post, but it is representative
of many of the views by other posters and panelists.

What makes the discussion here more difficult is that the
political establishment has created this program to be
very complicated and difficult to understand. My views of
the program are completely different from the views of many
of the panelists because we each have different expectations
about what the program offers.

Fortunately, the actuaries at the SSA have a clear understanding
of the financing of each of the component parts. So, if a
person wants to discuss benefits for divorced spouses, it is
possible to find out how much of the payroll tax is used,
and how much is spent in benefits. Expanding this aspect of
the program is just a matter of getting the actuaries to run
the numbers to determine what a change of benefits would cost.

Unfortunately, politicians can take advantage of the fact that
this single program satisfies multiple needs by playing interest
groups against each other for the same payroll tax dollars. 
And women are one large interest group.

The "greedy working male" primarily benefits from the component
of payroll tax dedicated to retirement benefits. Acturarily,
this money is separate from the money used to pay other benefits.
In other words, it is possible to consider this component 
separately and structure a program separately which gives retirees
the best benefits. Most discussions of "reform" center around
offering these beneficiaries an improved program (They are in
fact the largest beneficiaries of the program, including the
survivors benefits.)

Is the very small component which makes up divorcee benefits,
as an example, enough to derail reform for the other 95% of 
beneficiaries? Should these beneficiaries be held hostage
to interest groups which in total get a relatively small amount
of benefits? I don't think so.

Michael