RE: Welcome to the Roundtable

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
I see Social Security as an insurance program.  It insures those who
have bad things happen to them such as quadriparesis, schizophrenia, and
inability to work because of aging.
>>>>

How much are you willing to pay for these benefits? As it turns
out, most people will pay more in "insurance premiums" than
the potential benefits are worth!

<<<<
For those who are lucky--don't get sick, don't get hurt, remain vigorous
into old age, make and keep lots of money--they didn't need it.  But
they might have, and therein lies the essential fairness of the system.
>>>>

Most of the benefits provided by Social Security go to people
who live to retirement age or to their survivors. While the
program does provide benefits for unlucky people, these benefits
will be overwhelmed by the number of beneficiaries who will
reach retirement age in the next 15 years.

Should reform be held up by the small number of people who are
unlucky? Even if that part of the program would not be affected
by reforms in other parts of the system?

<<<<
Many women and minorities in our society are forced by their
circumstances to live hand to mouth.  They do not have the possibility
of saving by their own volition. Believe me.  This is true.  It is not
through some fault of theirs; but it is the way things are. Many do not
have the skills to guide investments if they were able to save--nor the
luxury of the time to learn them.  For these millions, Social Security
is a necessity.
>>>>

I would agree that low wage workers DO have problems saving outside
of living expenses. But, the fact is that low wage workers and
well as every other worker do in fact "save" 12.4% of income
through Social Security. In this sense everyone is an excellent
saver!

The question is, does this "saving" provide the best benefits for
these workers under the current system? The answer is NO.