RE: Civic equality in retirement?

[Javier Jimenez <jimenj@yahoo.com>]

>>>>>> Ruth Reilly wrote:
I subsist on his--not my--Social Security; for, it is much
higher than mine although we had the same number of degrees, and
he worked less years under Social Security than I did.  I subsist
on a small pension, social security, and the charity of my friends
and family.  I wonder how those with only Social Security in its
lowest payment schedules--who are usually those who have been unable
to save because they hardly made enough to subsist-- survive at
all.
<<<<<<

Circumstances like this are what make unfunded pay-as-you-go systems
viable for politicians.  The hard work of one worker is lost to
the benefit of others.  Under a PRA system, contributions are
deposited into accounts that belong to workers and their heirs.
A surviving spouse, usually the woman, that was in-and-out of the
workforce would have accumulated a nestegg that would be combined
with that of the deceased spouse, usually the husband.

Earlier on the show, Panelist Heidi Hartmann stated:

Barbara Janson asked whether she could keep her first husband's
Social Security benefits when she remarried, and she received an
answer that under a privatized system she could. That may be true,
depending on what regulations a privatized system would put in
place. Maybe a husband (not necessarily, your husband, Barbara!)
would leave his privatized account to his mother or his children,
or girlfriend, not is wife!

However, under current law, assigning a beneficiary other than a
spouse on any retirement account including IRA, 401k, Annuities,
etc. requires approval from that spouse.  So, I wouldn't consider
this to be a valid argument against PRAs.

>>>>>> Ruth Reilly wrote:
Senators and Congressmen, will you vote to let the old,  poor, and
sick live decently?
<<<<<<

I believe that we should not put our Representatives on the spot
by making them decide in whose favor they are going to legislate.
Past politicians did just that with the SS system providing greater
benefits that could, fiscally responsibly, be provided.  We shouldn't
fuel a class warfare when solutions exist that will provide financial
freedom and security to all workers, without exacerbating class
bitterness, or requiring our Representatives to make economic
decisions based on their political lust.

>>>>>> Ruth Reilly wrote:
Anything else is a vote against American ideals.
<<<<<<

I don't believe that American ideals of freedom to pursue hapiness
are well served by demanding hand-outs from politicians under threat
of electoral backlash.