C060420 Social Security

We must change the view permeating our nation that retirement is
supposed to begin when someone reaches the Social Security
Administration's set age for receiving benefits. That number was never
intended to represent a target retirement date, but it has become that
and the Social Security program has long since reached a critical
mass of inappropriately high benefits expectations. Better health care,
therapies, and other conditions have expanded life expectancy way
beyond what was expected when Social Security was set up in 1937.

Social Security has become the sacred cow of entitlements, a long term
government promise of a modest retirement that was initially intended to
be merely a fund for the old aged and disabled when it was approved in
the 1930's. Far too many people in the 1930's experienced an extremely
difficult end to their lives and Social Security was meant to assist them.
Everyone contributed in the spirit of "it could happen to me when I'm old
or disabled," it was a helping hand for some that needed help in their
later years of life. Our long-term legislators have turned it into an
impossible-to-sustain program with its current set up: a modest fund that
taxed income at 1% in 1937 when the average life expectancy for
someone born was 62 and the benefits would not be available until
someone was 65.

It has become a program with the aim of providing sufficient retirement
benefits so that someone can live in modest comfort during their later
years of life. This aim is not affordable and not appropriate to our
nation's tradtional work ethic. Is it any wonder why our savings rate
has plummeted in the last thirty years. The opinion of "I don't need
much money for retirement, Social Security will be there," has taken
over for too many Americans.

By 1983 when Social Security saw its first major overhaul, the tax rate
was 5.4% and life expectancy for those born that year was 74. The 1983
changes in the program raised the full benefit retirement age to 67 for
those born after 1959. Self-employed workers were required to pay a
combined rate equal to 100% of what employers and employees paid
(formerly they paid only 75%). Benefits of higher-income workers would
now be taxed, too. The no longer modest old aged fund was now
agreeing to pay people for an average of 7 years longer than the average
life expectancy.

The Social Security tax is now over 6% and life expectancy, that many
believe will only continue to expand during the first half of this century, is
now over 77 for someone born in 2002. Those starting to receive Social
Security this year had a life expectancy of just over 62, but are living
much longer.

President Bush last year to his credit tried to get the nation involved in
addressing the impending deficits in the Social Security program.
America didn't want to listen to the plan of taking some of the tax
money and setting it aside in higher earning investment accounts.
Primarily Democrats, but also many of our long-term non-term limited
Republican legislators, wouldn't discuss touching, as former Speaker of
the House Tip O'Neil called it, "the third rail of American politics." We
must have more forward thinking or the next time Congress overhauls
Social Security, the taxes will be increased even more, there will be
only a minor increase in the retirement age, and the program still an
afront to our nation's traditional work ethic.

We need not only to fix Social Security so it can meet most of its
current promises, but return it to where it began, as a means to help
those most in need, and bring it into the realities of the 21st century
as far as life expectancy is concerned. This will not be done by our
non-term limited legislators, far too many of whom are more
interested in re-election than leading and governing. We must
suggest to our Congressman and Senator that we will accept less
generous Social Security benefits and that we will vote for those
willing to represent that change.

The minimum age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits
should be raised immediately to the following and later adjusted as
life expectancy continues to go up. The option to receive less than
full benefits at age 62 or at any age, should be cancelled.

Only increasing the retirement benefits receiving age doesn't return the
program to its roots. The tax rate should be reduced by half and the
percentage of people taking part fully in paying the tax should increase.
Everyone born after 1975 should receive 40% less in benefits than those
born earlier and those born after 1985 should receive 50% less than
those born prior to 1975. They will be paying less taxes and should
receive benefits that are an assist, not a primary income.

The increase in the retirement age will have many favorable affects, not
the least being that our savings rate will increase and the lower Social
Security tax rate will also assist with that. With these changes we will
be closer to a return to our traditional work ethic and the low federal
government involvement society that served us well for over 150 years.