I guess I am just a little touchy when it comes to this subject. Our government has done a poor job when it comes to running the Social Security System and even when President Bush brought up amending the system a few years ago, the Democrat party said that nothing was wrong with it.

There are other systems such as the plans that government employees and state employees are on that are just fine but not the one for the general public. Now that the system is broke we look again to those that have produced good incomes and expect them to pay for the problem. To me there is something inherently wrong with this.

As to the solutions, I am not an expert in that area. If we need to raise taxes to help the system then let’s do it but any one that pays in should expect some benefit. I think that the state and federal employee system should be rolled into Social Security and then they should have a private system as well, but they need to pay into the overall system as should ALL working Americans.

My concern is not enough Americans are taking the responsibility to save for themselves, they look to the entitlement to have others pay for them. It is like a client that makes $100,000 per year but saves nothing for college and expects the public system to pay for his kids college. If we are always going to bail those out that don’t want to save for themselves they will look to someone else to pay.

No one wants to abandon those that need help in our society such as the disabled or ill or the elderly but why ask the well off to cover those that chose not to save because they wanted all the stuff and look for someone else to pay.

The system needs fixed but if we are not carful we will also change attitudes in the country that much more to expect entitlements and it generally is not the well to do that look for entitlements it is at the other end of the spectrum.

Dear Jim,

I'm not sure what it is you think we should do. Would you mind elaborating a little?

From: fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org [mailto:fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org] On Behalf Of James Curry
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:26 AM
To: alan@ccmiplan.com
Subject: [FPA_SocialSecurity] Social Security: Social Insurance or Social Investment

I guess I am one that has to voice a different opinion than what has been stated here. I do not believe that it is the publics view or Social Secuities original intent that workers would pay into the system but only some would draw from it.

The publics view in large part, at least in the opinion of this planner, is that they will receive a benefit if they have spent thier working years paying into the system. Most individuals have spent a lifetime of working with 13% of their wages going into this system, that seems to be a very high price for insurance.

As for those that make $500,000 per year not receiving a benefit, that only means that less than 1% of the population would be left out of the system, more tlike 0.5%. I beleive that if this the way that our government goes in thier thinking we will see that income level be set at $75,000, they will say that if you have a retirment income of $75,000, why would you need a social secutiy check.

I guess I am just a little touchy when it comes to this subject. Our government has done a poor job when it comes to running the Social Security System and even when President Bush brought up amending the system a few years ago, the Democrat party said that nothing was wrong with it.

There are other systems such as the plans that government employees and state employees are on that are just fine but not the one for the general public. Now that the system is broke we look again to those that have produced good incomes and expect them to pay for the problem. To me there is something inherently wrong with this.

As to the solutions, I am not an expert in that area. If we need to raise taxes to help the system then let’s do it but any one that pays in should expect some benefit. I think that the state and federal employee system should be rolled into Social Security and then they should have a private system as well, but they need to pay into the overall system as should ALL working Americans.

My concern is not enough Americans are taking the responsibility to save for themselves, they look to the entitlement to have others pay for them. It is like a client that makes $100,000 per year but saves nothing for college and expects the public system to pay for his kids college. If we are always going to bail those out that don’t want to save for themselves they will look to someone else to pay.

No one wants to abandon those that need help in our society such as the disabled or ill or the elderly but why ask the well off to cover those that chose not to save because they wanted all the stuff and look for someone else to pay.

The system needs fixed but if we are not carful we will also change attitudes in the country that much more to expect entitlements and it generally is not the well to do that look for entitlements it is at the other end of the spectrum.

Dear Jim,

I'm not sure what it is you think we should do. Would you mind elaborating a little?

From: fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org [mailto:fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org] On Behalf Of James Curry
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:26 AM
To: alan@ccmiplan.com
Subject: [FPA_SocialSecurity] Social Security: Social Insurance or Social Investment

I guess I am one that has to voice a different opinion than what has been stated here. I do not believe that it is the publics view or Social Secuities original intent that workers would pay into the system but only some would draw from it.

The publics view in large part, at least in the opinion of this planner, is that they will receive a benefit if they have spent thier working years paying into the system. Most individuals have spent a lifetime of working with 13% of their wages going into this system, that seems to be a very high price for insurance.

As for those that make $500,000 per year not receiving a benefit, that only means that less than 1% of the population would be left out of the system, more tlike 0.5%. I beleive that if this the way that our government goes in thier thinking we will see that income level be set at $75,000, they will say that if you have a retirment income of $75,000, why would you need a social secutiy check.

Alan,

Thanks for the response and I agree with all that you have to say here. I guess that I place blame on the government because they see the problem but have not been willing to make those hard decisions. I just wish they had made incremental changes as the demographics have changed and I totally agree the changes need to be made now, it will be a much more severe change  the later it is put off.

Thanks James. I appreciate your expanding on your original note. I really don't agree that it is the government's fault that Social Security is in danger though I'm sure improvements could be made. I think this is more of a demographic problem then poor management. When SS was originally set up as insurance protection life expectancy was much lower than it is today. This demographic shift has meant  SS recipients are living longer and that combined with fewer workers to support the system is the root cause of the problem. As planners, we know that either revenue has to be raised, expenses lowered or a combination of each. Congress knows that too but is afraid of making the hard choices (which are actually easier now then they will be in 2042). What is needed is for the American people to insist that Congress act now--not later.  I think FPA should take on this issue in a non-partisan way with emphasis on the possible solutions and educating the public so that Congress will be motivated to make those hard choices.

From: fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org [mailto:fpa_socialsecurity@fpanet.org] On Behalf Of James Curry
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:59 AM
To: alan@ccmiplan.com
Subject: RE: [FPA_SocialSecurity] Social Security: Social Insurance or Social Investment