Dear Editor, I don’t think Social Security in its present form
is a viable program of the future, and it cannot be fixed by minor
changes, such as increasing the retirement age again or increasing
taxes.
Why do private workers get stuck paying for public employees?
Dear Editor,
I don’t think Social Security in its present form is a viable program of the future, and it cannot be fixed by minor changes, such as increasing the retirement age again or increasing taxes. I am talking about just the portion of the Social Security Act that deals with retirement and not all the other programs that are in SS that most people are unaware of. The first step to modernizing SS would be to separate the retirement portion from the unemployment, aid to the blind, SSI and other parts.
Social Security retirement requires a completely new approach if it is to survive and provide a worthwhile benefit to workers. In 1935 when Social Security was enacted the retirement age was set at 65. This is interesting and troubling because in 1935 the average lifespan for men was 59.9 and 63.9 for women, and only about 15 percent were expected to live to actually draw Social Security. The average lifespan didn’t reach 65 until 1938 for women and 1949 for men.
The politicians who put Social Security into law planned on it being a nice slush fund for pet projects, since so few people would actually ever draw much money from the system. The thing they could not know pertained to advances in medicine and hygiene leading to many people receiving benefits.
At present most public employees are not covered and paying into Social Security (which begs the question of why not if is such a great program), and the private sector worker is working about 45 years to retire at 67 while public workers are able to retire after 30 years.
A private employee who has paid the max in the program for 45 years, and is currently making $106,800 a year (pays in 6.2 percent – $6,621. The employer adds another 6.2 percent – $4,421 for a total of $13,242) is only able to receive about $28,000 a year from SS.
Contrast this with the public employee who makes the same $106,800 a year, contributes about 3 to 3.5 percent at present ($3,450 approximately), and the government employer (taxpayer) puts in another 6 to 7 percent ($7,000). This information was derived from CALPERS history and the present University of California contribution schedule.
The public employee can retire after 30 years (average age about 57) at anywhere from $90,780 to $96,120 (assuming they don’t “spike” the last year’s income, which most do), and many claim injuries and receive much of their retirement tax free. The other thing public employees can do is work after retirement and not see their retirement reduced, while someone on Social Security can see a reduction in their Social Security retirement reduced $1 for every $2 earned after a low threshold.
How can the public employee receive such a golden retirement (which also includes medical) when private workers get only about 28 percent of this amount? The public retirement system has always had their money in financial stock markets (stock, bonds etc.), and the return year after year averages about 7 to 7.5 percent.
You would never guess this if you listen to the Democrat politicians and the public employee unions who support them, claiming that putting Social Security money into this very same type of program is like gambling in Las Vegas. Many politicians don’t want to move Social Security into a 401k type environment because then they lose their power over the money in the program. This type of system could easily and safely be guaranteed to provide at least double what is now received from Social Security.
One way to quickly make Social Security better would be to force all workers into the system now. How could the public employees refuse since it’s such a great program? I don’t see how the private workers who pay the public workers can continue to stand by while they are being played as fools for letting the system the public employees have continue.
The public employees fund is underfunded by about $21 billion just for the University of California system alone. And the amount underfunded for all public workers in California is $100s of billions, and by law the taxpayers are on the hook for the outlandish retirement programs the public employees have while private workers get a little pittance, but have to support the public employees.
The public had better wake up fast, or make plans to exit the state quickly when the whole system collapses. The private worker should also wake up and not let the politicians simply raise the retirement age or raise taxes to support the same old Social Security system.
Jim Hallum, Gilroy
Eliminate unnecessary wars and raise taxes on the rich
Dear Editor,
The Deficit Commission has suggested that the way to cut the deficit is to drastically cut Medicare and Social Security and raise taxes in gasoline. I say WRONG!
A better idea is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and raise the cap on Social Security payroll deductions from $100,000 to $250,000.
Before we start cutting services and increasing taxes for the poor and middle class we should eliminate unnecessary wars and raise taxes on the rich. I don’t see why rich people should pay a lower percentage of their income to FICA taxes than the middle class.
Marc Perkel, Gilroy
