NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/tx/politics/8083

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!novdpd!bboerner
From: [e-mail] (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:16:32 GMT
References: <1h <[e-mail]> <1992Dec27.190501.9404@rpp386>
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Lines: 52

In article <1992Dec27.190501.9404@rpp386> [e-mail] (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>$7150 per year, or $336,050 if they work 47 years (age 20 to age 67).
>The same person making $20K will pay in only $122,200.  The monthly
>benefits for the first person will be approximately $1,491 and the
>second $878.  (From SSA Pub No. 05-10024).  Using an average life
[...]
>Again, no true.  Do the math.  If you are "truly" rich, you will lose
>all of your benefits.  After $10,200, you lose 33 cents for every dollar
>of income you earn.  I wouldn't call a single retiree with only $10K
>per year of income "rich".  Would you?

Well, yes, I would.  As Russell Spence pointed out in another article,
it is useful to consider if they've paid off their house and cars.

At first I did think 10K in income was pretty paltry but consider
this:  take the 10K minus 20% for taxes which leaves 8K.  Take 1,491
per month (John's figure from above) * 12 months/year gives you
$17,892.  Add 8K and you get $25,892, almost 26K/year.  At this point
folks in the computer biz are probably still saying, "jeez, that's only
(.25, .5, .75, whatever) of my salary.  I'd hate to get by on only
26K/year." Don't forget to 1) look at your take home, NOT gross salary
(there's a big difference between my gross and take home because a) I'm
paying a shitload in income and SS taxes (aren't we all? :-)) and b)
I'm taking out 10% for stock purchase); 2) if you are currently paying
rent or a mortage or making payments on a car, then as Russell pointed
out, if you've got those paid for, deduct what you're paying from your
take home - you will have them paid off so you won't need that money;
3) presumably you won't still be putting the kids through braces and
college by they time you're 65 or 67 so you can take out the money your
spending on raising your kids (although I wonder if that will still be
true in the next decade or so as more and more people wait until their
30s to have kids...)

I'm not currently married or raising kids, so what I looked at was how
much I'd need today if I didn't have to make an apartment or car
payment.  Surprise, surprise, I could continue to live in the manner to
which I've become accustomed for UNDER 18K and my girlfriend and I eat
out quite a bit.  The remaining 8K/year would be gravy.

In fairness to John, though, I will say that I agree with his point
that the wealthy will be getting screwed 47 years from now when
they are pulling out less than the poor (as a percentage of what
they put in).  And as I've said before, we ought to acknowledge SS
for what is basically is (today), welfare for the old, and what it
will be 47 years from now, welfare for the old poor.


Brendan
--
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: [phone]    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: [e-mail]     \  Please use either if replying
   or  [e-mail] /  by mail exterior to Novell.