RE: Civic equality in retirement?

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

First, there is little evidence to support Maureen's victimization language
that women and minorities suffer unfairness in the workplace their whole
working lives--it is a sweeping generalization that begs for a debate
itself. That said, there is overwhelming evidence that redistribution would
not be necessary under a system of personally owned retirement accounts in
which money is invested over a working lifetime. Even a woman in the worst
case financial situation--a low-wage, single worker who has spent time
moving in and out of the workforce--would be able to earn in her own right a
significant retirement income. It is only under our current
pay-as-you-go-system, in which the government fetters away our payroll taxes
and gives us next to nothing in return, that redistribution becomes an
issue. It would be far better to reform the system into one in which every
worker can meet her own needs through her own hard work.

For example, should all recipients
who have been citizens a minimum number of years receive the same
cash benefit per month?  If we retain a substantially non-privatized,
pay-as-you-go system, should past earnings really decide one's
benefits, or is that an insult upon an injury?  This question is
offered as a device to elicit your deeper opinions.


Darcy Olsen