To the editor:
Thank you for publishing Michelle Singletary's wonderful column, "Social Security helps cut poverty," on Aug. 16. It is a clear, well-documented description of Social Security's true nature and the widespread, vital, almost life-saving help it has been (and is) to millions of people who otherwise would have suffered terribly.
Social Security is vital to the well-being of the American people. It must not be weakened by misleading "private accounts" or other such subterfuges! It can be strengthened by simple modifications such as those recommended by AARP. We older Americans are concerned that Social Security continue to be strong for the well-being of our children and grandchildren. Many thanks to Ms. Singletary for "telling it as it is" in her great and timely column!
Ron Buskirk,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
erichaar (anonymous) says…
In order to make Social Security more solvent, we can do some or all of the following in the future, most of which are terrible options:
Increaset the retirment age
Decrease Social Security benefits
Raise taxes
Increase the rate of return Social Security tax dollars earn between the time you pay them into the system and the time you begin withdrawing.
The last option is clearly the best. So how can our country do this? By allowing today's workers who are under the age of 55 to voluntarily contribute a small portion of their Social Security contribution to between one and five pre-determined, safe investment options such as CD's, mutual funds, and bond funds.
This plan will guarantee no reductions in Social Security benefits for today's retirees or those who choose not to participate in a personal account. The brilliance of this idea is that personal account contributions will grow America's economy while ensuring a Social Security system that is strong and that will promise good benefits for decades to come.
Friends, even the AARP offers investments. Their mutual funds are listed first alphabetically every day in the business section of our nation's newspapers.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
For some reason, many politicians believe that a weak economy is good for america. For some reason it boost the DOW Jones average and such. But in reality, a high job demand produces a few good things that will help reduce the issues on social security.
1. Because of the availability of jobs, more unemployed people will be able to work, reducing strain on government funds and contributing via SS tax towards the problem.
2. The high demand of jobs will make the job market more competitive for workers, generating higher wages for even menial work, thus resulting in more being paid into SS tax.
3. With such competition will come increased benefits, including disability benefits should something befall the worker, as well as more retirement, pension plans. This too will reduce the strain on the Social Security department.
The other ramifications of an improved economy would reduce crime (freeing more govt monies) improving social welfare, a stronger dollar, reduction in the amount of people/families on welfare(saving yet more money), freeing up monies from other govt social programs (HUD, Welfare, Foodstamps, Medicaid/Medicare, ect.) that can be used to better help the people who are either unable to work due to disability or age.
As it is, the Social Security system is doomed to fail, as it fails to properly take into account the cost of living, the fluctuating cost of consumables, many medical issues and so-forth. For this reason, many an elderly person is supposed to live on $500 a month. And with a substantial portion of that going into food, housing and medical, I ask you how they can live properly?
An overhaul is needed, not really on the SS system, a few changes there can help a lot. But on the entire governmental-economic structure of our country. Or it will fall not long after social security will.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
I cannot resist highlighting one part of this author's statement: "We older Americans are concerned that Social Security continue to be strong for the well-being of our children and grandchildren." Yes, by all means, this (service? benefit? opportunity?) must, like medicine, be forced down those young-uns throats even if they don't want it. Despite the leftwing spin that paints "privatization" as a scheme cooked up by billionare stockbrokers, it is in fact young people who agitate for a different approach. If there is a proposal to be put forward that affects ONLY those under age 55, or 40, then only those people should be voting on that proposal. After all, grandpa isn't footing the bill for his granddaughter's retirement 50 years into the future.
If the Soviet government is going to disallow people's ability to make their own choices about their life, the least they could do is set requirements that afford a more guaranteed benefit. For example, why not make a requirement (not an option) that an additional two percent of income be set aside in personal retirement accounts - ira's or whatever (or failing this self-help the two percent be paid in payroll tax). The SS plan continues to get its funding and younger workers get personal savings accounts whether they want them or not. You cannot tell me that a country like the U.S., with the lowest savings rate imaginable, cannot afford an increased savings of two percent. It might not be a libertarian's dream but at least it would be one small flower of freedom in this socialist wasteland.