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