From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihlpb!nickles
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Social Security - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ihlpb.259
Posted: Fri Jan 21 10:02:19 1983
Received: Sat Jan 22 02:18:59 1983

#R:hplabs:-112500:ihlpb:19100006:  0:1417
ihlpb!nickles    Jan 21  9:21:00 1983

I haven't read the Newsweek article (I'll do that during lunch today!),
but, why is it that you can put $60 in, and take much more out?
This is ludicrous.  I thought that FICA was more like manadatory
retirement planning, i.e. a federal IRA.  This is just welfare,
and should be called welfare.

The amount of money anyone can take out of the system should be exactly
the amount that they put into the system, plus 5 1/4% interest (the
interest level would have to be more flexible since the fed lets it
free-float now).  Any other payments should be made in the name of
welfare.  Welfare gets paid out of the general fund, and hence we
can easily complain about welfare.  I.e. there should be a change
in terminology and bookkeeping.  But, there need not be a change in
payments, just where the money comes from.  Taxes would rise to
support the general fund.

The real kicker is that we, the massive working class, seem to have
a weaker lobby than the smaller SS benefit recievers.  It seems that
at the very least we should protect our interests and lobby hard
against high SS taxes.  I hate taxing, when the revenues are going
into a system that can't even get input=output right.  If that
system were sound, and we were being taxed into the general fund,
then at least I'd sleep knowing SS would be around in 40 years when
I retire.

					Jack Nickles
					[harpo!ihnss!] ihlpb!nickles

					IH 6G-317 x6356 BTL