CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 31
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 31
Total: 31

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Social Security is like Robin Hood in reverse.

According to the Dispatch Article “Seniority Rules” federal spending per capita for someone over 65 is $17,700/year while it is only $2,500/year for children, a 7-to-1 difference. This is true even though the median wealth of a retiree is $86,000, about 15 times that of a person under 35 and 3 times that of “working families” ages 35-44. In addition, according to the most recent Census figures the poverty rate is 9.7% for the elderly 65 and over, while it is 16.9% for those under 18. The numbers are even worse if you are a minority. 32.7% of all African Americans under 18 and 23.6% of all African American households are in poverty. Ironically, with a life expectancy just under 65, the average African American male will never receive a single penny is Social Security “benefits.” Most retired elderly however do not pay Federal taxes to cover the costs of their benefits, working people do. Essentially Social Security, Medicare, and other federal entitlement programs for the elderly rob from the poor and give to the rich, like Robin Hood in reverse. We allow many of our children to live in poverty while Donald Trump can rest easy that fear mongering politicians will protect his Social Security “benefit,” regardless of its cost. But then again why shouldn’t they? By doing so one can earn the title of a “policy wonk,” and by trying to address the issue earns one the title of intellectually challenged and “unqualified for the presidency.”
 

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts    
18 minutes ago  Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!
 

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites), stepping into the politically charged debate over Social Security (news - web sites), said Wednesday the country can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...span_budget&e=1

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts
 
WASHINGTON  — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search), stepping into the politically charged debate over Social Security, said Wednesday the country can't afford the benefits currently promised to the baby boom generation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112438,00.html

 

Forget Enron, audit Social Security.

In the grand scheme of things Enron is a drop in the bucket, being only one company out of the 500 in the  S&P 500 Index, and one out of 5000 in the Wilshire 5000 Index. To put things in perspective, Lucent has lost more in value than Enron. The economy and Nation will barely even notice its absence a year from now. In fact, because it essentially created the concept of energy trading markets, America in the long run will be strengthened by its innovations as other companies pick up its fallen torch. Over 200 companies went bankrupt last year without much hoopla at all. This is all part of the corporate Darwinism that Tres. Sec. Paul O'neill rightfully called the "beauty of Capitalism." If Congress really wants to do the Nation a big favor it should audit the Social Security System's accounting. By its own admission the so called "TRUST Fund" holds 100% US Government Bonds. Just what exactly is the accounting entry for an entity that holds its own liabilities? That is me giving myself a loan. It makes no sense. If this was a private trust it would never pass an audit. In addition, where are my monthly statements showing  which of those bonds have my name on it? My 401k does that, why not Social Security? ERISA, the Employees Retirement Income Security Act, requires retirement plans to be diversified. Holding 100% of the portfolio in low yielding government bonds is not only in violation of the diversification requirements, it is totally inappropriate for a retirement portfolio with a long term time horizon. Lastly, in reality Social Security is a transfer system. Money paid into it either goes out as social security checks to current recipients or towards funding some other government program. These programs don't pay dividends, they expend tax revenues and then some. Using the huge investment in welfare over the years as an example, the return on investment of these Government programs makes even Enron look like a great investment. Enron may have destroyed a few retirement portfolios, welfare gave us a cycle of poverty that ruined thousands of lives for over 30 years. An entire generation grew up with no incentive, in fact institutionalized disincentives, to work. In reality there is no "trust fund" in the classic sense. While some Enron employees opted to put all their retirement eggs in the Enron basket, most undoubtedly are just fine if they diversified their 401k. The same cannot be said about the one option no choice mandatory Social Security system. When the demographic time bomb hits this Ponzi scheme, the entire Nation, not just a relatively few retirement  high rollers, will potentially be dragged into chapter 11.  If congress really wants to help the Nation they should audit Social Security the require that the ERISA laws be applied to the "TRUST Fund." Now that would be a scandal worth the headlines.
 

One more bill for the Grandchildren.

Recently the heat has been turned up on the political rhetoric as both sides claim to be willing to "give" the elderly a Medicare drug benefit. Considering that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and that Santa Clause and Robin Hood only exist in fairy tails and cartoon books. A more accurate description would be that the Government will provide a drug benefit for Grandparents and sending the bill to the Grandchildren. For some reason, the politicians always seem to fail to mention the second part.
 

Teacher's Privatized Pension proves Opposition to Vouchers Hypocritical

Some of school vouchers staunchest opponents are public school teachers and the NEA. They base their opposition on the premise that "Voucher will Rob Public Schools of badly Needed Funds." If ""Robbing Public Programs and Systems of 'badly needed funds'" is the standard on which to base one's disapproval, then this standard should also be applied to the Teacher's Pensions. Many Teachers, State, Local and Municipal workers have been allowed to "opt" out of Social Security and pay into their own privatized pension plans. CALPERS is one of the best known and largest, and here in Columbus and Ohio we have STRS (State Teacher's Retirement System), PERS (Public Employee's Retirement System), The Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund and a whole host of others.  In essence these groups have been granted "social security vouchers." By using their own faulty Orwellian logic, which puts the system's needs above those of the individual's, by not paying into Social Security they themselves are "robbing Social Security of badly needed funds." Bottom line is teachers shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Teachers can't have it both ways. Either they should support a voucher system or have their private pension plans merged into social security. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Hypocrisy should not be tolerated in our schools.
 

Teachers "Rob Social Security of Badly Needed Funds."

One of the main arguments against school vouchers is that they will "rob the Public Schools of badly needed funds." This is interesting because some of vouchers staunchest opponents, the NEA and many if not most Teachers, do exactly the same thing to Social Security, which is arguably in greater need of funding than the public schools.  A fact that they seem intent to keep hidden from the public is that teachers do not pay into Social Security. They are allowed to "opt out" of the Social Security system, and instead pay into their own privatized system. They have essentially been given vouchers for what would have been their Social Security tax. Either the Teachers' Pension should be merged into Social Security or the Teachers should support vouchers, you can't have it both ways. Either "robbing Government programs of funding" is wrong or it isn't. You can't simply teach "do as I say not as I do."
 

Letter

Common Objections to a Market-Based Social Security System: A Response
by Melissa Hieger and William Shipman

Melissa Hieger is a vice president and William Shipman is a principal with State Street Global Advisors. Mr. Shipman is co-author of: Promises to Keep: Saving Social Security's Dream and co-chairman of the Cato Project on Social Security Privatization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp10.html
 

Since I originally wrote this artical I came in contact with some new info: (Source Investors Business Daily 25 Nov 1996) "Artical "Privatized Social Security: A U.S. Test Case". A Federal Loophole in that was closed in 1983 allowed certain groups to opt out of social security. I know the teachers here in town took advantage of such a loophole, as well as many groups in Texas. The artical covers a few, and the highlights are as follows:

1. Employees of three Texas Counties earn an annual rate of return equal to 6.5% in a VESTED PERSONAL Retirement account.

2. Texas employees of the county of Galviston pay a similar amount, a 13.78% payrole tax/retirement plan, and was overwelming voted in by 78% of the employees.

3. Benefits Breakdown:

A person making $20,000, having worked for 40 years at age 65 would retire with $383,032.
A person making $30,000, having worked for 40 years at age 65 would retire with $573,782.
A person making $50,000, having worked for 40 years at age 65 would retire with $956,303.
Lump sum or Annuity payout, and residual can be left to children/heirs.
Annuity Payout as compared to Social Security:

Annual salary = $20,000 Social Security benefits = $775/mo Private Plan = $2,740/mo, yes that is 3.535 X Payout over Social Security.
Annual salary = $50,000 Social Security benefits = $1,302/mo Private Plan = $6,843/mo, yes that is 5.256 X Payout over Social Security.
Life Insurance benefits are 3 X the workers salary for the private plan with a minimum of $50,000 and maximum of $150,000, and only a one time payout of $225 to the surviving spouse with Social Security.
Disability insurance benefits are relatively easy to get, and pays out 60% of their salary up to 65. Social Security disability benefits are relatively difficult to get, and younger workers do not even quality until they have worked a certain number of years.
The current Social Security claims to invest the money by buying U.S. Government bonds, which are totally dependant upon the ability of the government to raise tax revenue, and service its debt. This tax revenue financed purchase is then paid out in benefits from a mythical trust fund. There are no private vested accounts, your benefits are backed only by the faith that the government will eventually pay these benefits to you. Unfortunately, they can, have, and will likely change the rules before you begin to to get your benefits. The bottom line, and clearest example of how fraudulent the system is that the government takes your money, and buys government bonds with it for you. If this is how it works, then WHY DO THEY  NOT ALSO PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOND THAT THEY BUY WITH YOUR MONEY?? Answer; if they did then they would be held to actually paying out the benefits. Why does the government need to hold the bonds for us? Why not just force us to buy government bonds that are unmarketable until they mature, and force us to buy bonds that mature the year we turn 65, and let us hold them? Same outcome, different person controlling the assets. Personally, I would rather hold the bonds, than spend some of the money paying someone to invest and hold them for me.

Other Sources:

Graph of the difference between a Private IRA and Social Security

Intellectual Capital.Com

Privatize Social Security Study

Index of Social Security papers

Sinse the last revision I came up with a new look at redistributing income in a market friendly manner, and aiding in ending the "cycle of poverty." Here is what I came up with.

A common sense beginning to ending poverty and redustributing income would be to privatize social security, yes, privatize social security. Why? Because a private IRA portfolio can be left to your children when the parent passes away. This would allow the younger generation to be given a lump sum, or annuity as a way out of poverty. In http://home.megalinx.net/~bumpy/Social_Sec...rity_reform.htm I cover a real life example of a low income earner who has a private portfolio consisting of invested SS tax payments. As one can see there can be a considerable amount of money left to the children in this manner. It is a market friendly way to redistribute wealth. The government as it is now, hooks people on welfare or social security, and when the person passes away, so do the benefits to the rest of the family (except spouse). This is an ideal way to maintain a dependency on the government. Keep the people in poverty, thinking the only way to redistribute wealth is by taxing and govt programs without ever showing them the option of allowing people to pass on their retirement portfolios to their children. By allowing the poverty children to inherit the residual of the retirement protfolio is a great first step out of poverty. Look at the example in the privatized social security posting below to see what kind of real numbers social security is actually preventing you from having in retirement.


Common-Sense: Social Security Reform
Social security was originally intended to be insurance against poverty of the elderly. This honorable goal has been distorted into a pension for nearly 100% of the U.S. retires and their dependents. It was created during a time when there was a highly favorable worker to retiree ratio of about 10/1 and was easily paid for with a transfer payment system. The times have changed however and the worker to retiree ratio is expected to reach 3/1 early next century. 1st Solution: Administer it as it was intended; as an insurance. If you buy auto insurance and you do not get in an accident, you do not collect on your policy, nor do you ask for your money back. If you buy health, fire, and life insurance and do not get sick, have a fire, or die, you do not collect or get your money back from the insurance company. You should be allowed to collect only if predetermined events occur. In the case of social security it would be the failure of one's private pension to provide an income that was above the poverty level. This would provide an incentive for people to save, because social security would no longer be guaranteed for anything more than a slightly higher than poverty level income. 2nd Solution: First, social security must be administered as an insurance, not a pension. There needs to be a strong effort on the government to market it as such. People accept the way that their auto insurance is administered, they must accept the came for social security. The costs of the current system will far outweigh the benefits in the long run. Second, you will need a spread sheet program for this solution. Calculate out: The social security tax for a 16-yr old making minimum wage and working 40 hrs/wk. Increase this income at 5%/yr to allow for raises, promotions, and inflation out to the age of 65 (49 yrs or 588 months). This is rather conservative. Use the full 15% tax rate, which is the employers and employees share of the social security tax, to find the monthly tax payment. Invest this flow of income at 7% annually, compounded monthly. This is approximately the U.S. government bond rate, and once again is conservative. Do everything on a monthly basis. Take into consideration the cut off income level of $60,000 for the social security tax payments, then do it without the cut off. Now find the future value of these tax payments at the age of 65.

ANSWER: Now, if done correctly, it should be $1,380,123 with the income cut off of $60,000 and $1,447,894 without the cut off. Yes, you got that right, 1.3 and 1.4 MILLION $ nest egg. That money could be invested at 10% and provide a $130,000 and $140,000 yearly income. This is well above the poverty level, even adjusted for inflation. Now, if the government felt that it needed to take part in this program, it could specify the types of investments allowed in this self-funded pension plan. For instance, only AA bonds or above. They could also monitor the mutual funds and pension plans, and set the rules and laws associated with allowable withdrawals. Benefits: An individual would have their very own pension, with their own name on it. The government would no longer control the money that the individual paid in. It is the individual's account, just like an IRA. It is essentially a government mandated IRA. Only difference is your tax payment goes into an individuals account instead of going to the government. Your income would not change, you already pay the tax. You would simply redirect the payment into an IRA. Forget the problem of the low U.S. savings rate. This would be a huge inflow of investment funds at every interest rate, i.e., right shift in the LM curve. This would also help increase the capital labor ratio, making the U.S. labor force more productive, and thus opening the door for higher wages. People would be living off of their investment income, not a transfer payment funded through economic growth-slowing taxes. This plan would increase the tax base, stimulate economic growth, and lower the interest rate. The current system does exactly the opposite. This would greatly reduce the burden on the government, reducing its need to raise revenues and helping to eliminate the deficit. The government would only need to cover those people who's pension did not provide an adequate income. This would be a far lower percentage than the current system of near 100%.

PROBLEMS: Those who do not save enough. They would be the people social security was intended to help. They would benefit from the government social security INSURANCE. This number would be far fewer than the current near 100% of the elderly. I have yet to hear of a mutual fund going under. Social security is almost guaranteed to go under if the current system is not changed. The higher national income and investment could easily handle the tax burden of these few. Remember, this increase in investment would provide higher paying jobs, i.e., fewer needing social security insurance because of their large contributions to their IRAs. Tax revenues could be raised by taxing people with exceptionally high pension incomes, and the government could tax the remaining equity after it is no longer needed by the recipient. This could be done in the form of an inheritance tax. It uses the principal of diversification, and could include worldwide diversification. If a well diversified portfolio of the biggest and best companies of the U.S. went under, their would be no economy for the current system to tax anyway. The proposed system greatly reduces the risk of an economic downturn, where as the current system is sure to create a tremendous economy-slowing tax burden. It also diversifies the current, all eggs in one basket plan (the current system invests solely in government bonds), to a truly diversified portfolio.

If you agree with this or any part of it, please forward it to your representative.


Myths:

Social Security Reduces the deficit. Entitlements are what have created the deficit.
Without Social security people would not have anything. Actually, had it not been for Social Security most people would have been saving for their retirement. Instead, people relied on Social Security, stopped saving, and became dependant on the government. This is almost always the worst possible outcome.
Without Social Security many elderly will starve. Almost no one would want to do away with a safety net, that is what social INSURANCE is. It is the fact that Social Security is administered as a pension, instead of an insurance that it threatens it own ability to priovide its intended benefit.
People can not invest on their own, and many will be robbed of their savings. When is the last time you heard of a mutual fund company failing, or robbing its share holders? The arguement about selecting investments is easy, require people to invest X% in an index fund that contains the Fortune 500, SNP500 , Russell 2000, or any broad market index. If these firms do not exist at the time of retirement, and your mutual fund investment is gone, so will the tax base on which the govt would have gotten your Social Security tax anyway. If there is nothing left to tax, where does the govt think it was going to get the money? BTW, an 80% tax rate makes it far more likely that these firms will fail, then if were instead investing in them vs. taxing them.
Social Security is a good and popular program. Even if it is, it is not the best method out of the alternatives. If it does the job, but gives a poor return, is it the best way to administer it?
Social Security should be preserved because it has such a low administration fee. A no-load mutual fund, especially index funds, may have management fees, but the return given is well worth it.
Social Security money is in a trust fund holding US Govt Bonds. Right?!, then why is your name not on those bonds?
Social Security helps society by opening up jobs. Right?!, if anything, we need to keep workers in the workforce. Who is going to be producing all the food and goods when 33% of the population is consuming and not producing. Also, why should pepole not have the right to work, especially since the life expectancy is much higher today, and will continue to increase.
 

Government as last resort, not first.

This is the best plan Im have read so far.

My Webpage

My Webpage

American Civil Rights Union

Social Security Trust Fund Is a Weed Waiting to Sprout

Progressive proposal

[I am not going to privatize Social Security]

"I'm just trying to say it's not as complicated as some people think it may be. I will not touch the [social] contract. The contract, in my judgment, is sacrosanct between generations."
-- Sen. John Kerry, NBC's Meet the Press, August 31, 2003

"I'm not for means testing ... I'll tell you what I won't do before I'll tell you what I'll do. I am not going to privatize Social Security. I am not going to lift the retirement age or make it harder for hardworking Americans to retire. We ought to try to retire earlier in America. And I'm not going to means test. ... I think we have to look at how we make it more progressive, and all I said was, 'Today, there's a cutoff at $86,000.' Now, I wouldn't start with the people at $86,000. I'd start with the wealthiest people in the country if you need to..."
-- Sen. John Kerry, NBC's Meet the Press, August 31, 2003

http://www.socialsecurity.org/press/statem...ements-con.html

One student’s asked “Social security funds are kind of on a road toward bankruptcy. What is your plan to save it?”

Kerry responded by guaranteeing Social Security for many centuries and added that the solution to the problem of Social Security can be solved with an economic spurt.

“I do not intend to privatize Social Security the way George Bush wants to try to do it, and I don’t intend to cut the benefits because I don’t think you need to in order to pay for George Bush’s tax cut for the wealthy Americans,” Kerry said. “If we roll back the tax cut and begin to be responsible fiscally, then Social Security will be just fine.”

http://www.newu.uci.edu/article.php?id=1807

Q: What have you done to protect and improve Social Security, and what more should be done?
KERRY: Well, we did protect Social Security in the US Senate, and Social Security is safe and sound well into the next two decades or more. With very minor changes, with a strong economy, the next generation will have Social Security. I will never privatize Social Security. I will never try to extend the retirement age for Social Security. And I will not cut any benefits for Social Security.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_...al_Security.htm


 

Will Bush Be Able to Pull a Reagan
On Addressing Social Security?
June 10, 2004; Page A2

Twenty-one years ago, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan, with a little help from their friends, saved Social Security.

To break a partisan stalemate, then-President Reagan appointed then-citizen Greenspan to be chairman of a commission that persuaded a Republican White House and Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives to increase payroll taxes, lift the retirement age and trim benefits.

The result, Mr. Reagan said in April 1983, was "to allow Social Security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations yet to come."

If President Bush wins a second term, he will have to decide if he wants to do something to avoid leaving federal finances in worse shape than he found them. He could wage war on defense and domestic spending, a campaign for which he has displayed little appetite. He could retool the tax code, an initiative in which aides say he shows little interest. He could fix Medicare so it doesn't consume the federal budget, an unlikely move given last year's messy Medicare legislation.

Or he could take on Social Security, which won't age gracefully for another 21 years without surgery.

 This seems the most likely choice, if he chooses to do anything fiscally significant. He campaigned on it. His last State of the Union address reiterated the call to let "younger workers ... build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account." Those economic advisers who worry, albeit very quietly, about deficits want to tackle it. All that's needed is for his political squad to say that Social Security plays well enough to make this part of the Bush legacy project.

The problem is simple: Despite myths and trust funds, Social Security "is not, nor has it ever been, a savings program," Mr. Bush's point man on Social Security, Charles Blahous, wrote in a 2000 book. "Today's payroll taxes go to support today's retirees. Tomorrow's Social Security income -- at least under current law -- will be provided by taxing tomorrow's workers." The number of retirees is going to increase faster than the number of tax-paying younger workers; there won't be enough payroll tax revenue to pay promised benefits.

Mr. Bush's first decision will be whether to pretend that permitting younger workers to divert some payroll taxes to personal accounts will suffice. It won't, and his advisers know it. Still, there is a free-lunch crowd that argues otherwise. They say these accounts will be invested in stocks and bonds, increasing saving and investment so much the U.S. will enjoy an economic boom that will produce enough additional tax revenue to pay older workers' Social Security benefits.

That exposes one huge problem. Even if diverting payroll taxes to private accounts proves a good deal for younger workers, it leaves the government without enough money to pay benefits to existing retirees.

If he shuns the free-lunch crowd, expect Mr. Bush to argue that markets and votes will understand an extra $100 billion a year in government borrowing over 10 years to pay these transition costs if -- and here's another big decision -- it's part of a broader plan to fix Social Security finances. That'll be a particularly tough case if the deficit in the rest of the government is swollen for whatever reason.

Making the case with a straight face demands a lasting fix to Social Security -- either putting in more money by raising taxes or taking less money out by trimming benefits. Mr. Bush won't propose an increase in payroll taxes. His pattern is to throw Congress some "principles" and hope they'll do the heavy lifting. That didn't work very well on Medicare; he got a prescription-drug benefit without much offsetting savings.

So if Mr. Bush wants Social Security to turn out differently, he'll have to identify an acceptable way to trim spending on benefits -- by changing the formula for determining how much retirees get, by changing the way benefits are increased to keep up with inflation or by lifting the age at which workers can retire and receive full benefits.

Devising a plan that adds up is easy. Getting a plan through Congress is all that matters, and that will be hard. Compared with 1983, there are fewer members of Congress willing to accept short-term political pain to do something in their constituents' long-term interest. Many prominent politicians, Mr. Bush included, prefer telling voters that they can have costless benefits to persuading them that paying some costs now will avoid much bigger costs later.

Mr. Greenspan's friends joke that the 78-year-old can't retire from the Federal Reserve because he won't have anything to do. Perhaps heading another commission to help Social Security age gracefully can be his post-retirement hobby.

Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com5

 URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1086815...0633039,00.html

 
 Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/articles/capital_exchange
(2) mailto:capital@wsj.com
(3) http://www.ssa.gov/history/history.html
(4) mailto:capital@wsj.com
(5) mailto:capital@wsj.com  
 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retire...ills/P73718.asp

The Basics
How Social Security cheats you to pay the rich
 
Workers earning minimum wage pay their full share, while those who pull down a few hundred grand pay much, much less. How about a tax break for real people?

http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/b4270.htm

Social Security reform has been a political issue for years due to the threatening possibility of the system’s collapse.  The possible collapse of Social Security is merely the “tip of the iceberg” and just one of the many problems of this system.  The current system treats women, minorities, the poor and the traditional family unjustly (Tanner 16).  “Social Security acts like a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and giving to the rich” (Tanner 18).   Because of Social Security’s imperfections, many people have suggested an alternative system in which workers have the freedom to choose to stay with the old system or invest their money into a private account.  This private investment would be much like an IRA or 401-K (41).  This would give every American an option to earn nearly three times more than normally earned under the Social Security system.  Several countries have already adopted this system and have a much improved economy.  
 

[The declining population fuels fears for the pension system as a smaller workforce supports a mass of pensioners]

Japan's population starts shrinking

TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's population fell for the first time in 2005, the government said, calling it a "turning point" that will force the world's second largest economy to adapt to a rapidly aging society.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
With its young people increasingly finding children a burden to their careers and lifestyles, Japan joins Germany and Italy among a club of nations whose populations have started to shrink.

Deaths are likely to outnumber births by about 10,000 this year, the first decline since 1899 when Japan began compiling the data, health ministry figures showed.

"Our country is now standing at a major turning point in terms of population," Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Jiro Kawasaki told a news conference.

The declining population fuels fears for the pension system as a smaller workforce supports a mass of pensioners

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051222/lf_af...on_051222040644