The Sun Is Getting Hot
Filed Under (Culture) by Sarah on February-23-2005

I do not know much about retirement plans, or even social security. Such things are under my husband’s care. Needless to say, I’m getting rather frustrated and bored with all this relentless prattling about the social security crisis. The Democrats say we’re jolly fine, the president says the system is doomed, very, very doomed, my grandparents’ monthly social security payments are dwindling, healthcare costs are rising, and the Baby Boomers will soon be retiring in mass numbers. All I can see is that yes, things do potentially look very dismal from what I’ve been able to observe, and shrug when both sides say the other’s lying. How would I know?

While driving to Niceville today, in the rain, on my way to do some errands, I heard a very interesting interview with William Saletan on Day to Day, a radio show produced by NPR and Slate Magazine. Saletan points out that both the president’s and the Democrats’ plans are very risky, and suggests an option that’s utterly refreshing, and perhaps, the best idea I’ve heard so far. He points out that Roosevelt’s administration marked sixty-five as the age when health problems prevented one from working, provides data that shows, due to excellent healthcare and a society that doesn’t rely as heavily on physical labour, the age at which one, on average, is no longer able to work due to physical ailments is between seventy and seventy-five. Elderly people whose conditions prevented them from working before, let’s say, seventy-two, would be put on a disability program until they reached the age of retirement.

Saletan says that this would more than save social security, that it could cut the government’s payouts by more than forty percent. By and large, people seem to have caught that outrageous supposition that we’re all owed a retirement at sixty-five when we’re still able bodied and useful, a large social security check, and a condo in Florida wherein we sail into death on a permanent vacation. This would be a dream unthinkable to previous generations, and is also… a pipedream of unbiblical proportions. Work until the day is done.

   Read More

Comments:
Jon on February 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 pm

I would think that the ideal would be to cut the SS program altogether. I’d like to be able to plan my retirement on my own, and not have to pay for anyone else’s.

sarah mosley on February 24th, 2005 at 9:42 am

I suppose that would be ideal, but I doubt it will ever be possible.

Nathanael on February 25th, 2005 at 10:18 am

The first thing we can do to fix Social Security is to support our own families. My parents and grandparents and great-grandparents should never have to rely on SS checks. The second thing we must do is provide charity to those in our parish who are in need. The church should never allow its parishoners to rely on SS checks. If we do those two things, it won’t matter what the government does. They could burn the twelve percent they’re “holding safe” for everyone (I’m not so sure that they don’t already), but it simply wouldn’t matter. That may even be the key to economic success for this country - making the government’s subsidized poverty programs completely obsolete because the church has taken the standard of charity and is fulfilling its duty to its community.

Auntie Pam on March 1st, 2005 at 1:45 pm

My dearest N, what you propose is beautiful but idealistic; where’s the safety net for the aged and unable when the families and/or church fail to act as they should? This is a sinful world. We do not live up to our idealistic standards. Soc Sec was created in recognition of the reality that “the poor will always be among us.” The aged and unable are the most vulnerable and a moral society must create for them a safety net. A start to the SS prob: eliminate the ceiling for soc sec wage and create an income max for benefit recipients. Why is this “fair?” Because these are not the days of our forefathers–not even our recent forefathers: “In 1980, the avg CEO pay for America’s biggest cos. was about 40x that of the av worker. In 9/2003, this ratio is thought to be 400x”-The Economist. Never before has there been such a huge disparity in earned wage in this country–if there is no ceiling on remuneration, why should there be a ceiling on that remuneration for ss tax? Greed is rampant in this country. We have ins exec’s with an annual 200 mil take-home pkg and millions of families w/o ins because neither they nor their employers can afford the premiums. Privatization of SS only makes sense for the market savvy–and what % of the country do you think that is? Why not let the SSA directly invest rather than indirect invt through dispersal? The arguments against this (re: power) could be over-come. I don’t see a properly managed SS program as anything more than the legal embodiment of Scripture’s “if you have 2 coats, give 1 to someone with none.”

Archer on March 2nd, 2005 at 11:16 am

Auntie Pam,

CEO’s are adequately and fairly compensated for their work. If you were GE, and a CEO could take you from a $14 billion a year company to a $500 billion a year company, how would you compensate him? The only class of workers that are overpaid are college professors! :) Privatization of SS rocks for many reasons, but if anyone is really curious as to how it would work, I direct you to http://thevanguard.org/thevanguard/issues/social_security/index.shtml

Archer

Post a comment
Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.
Name: 
Email: 
URL: 
Comments: