Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5h.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!mgh From: mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) Newsgroups: net.taxes Subject: Re: SS deduction Message-ID: <434@hou5h.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 22:57:26 EST Article-I.D.: hou5h.434 Posted: Mon Apr 22 22:57:26 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 03:01:30 EST References: <5762@duke.UUCP> <121@pyuxh.UUCP> <632@ssc-vax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 70 In Message-ID: <5762@duke.UUCP> From: br@duke.UUCP (Balu Raman) >>> I am not my brothers keeper and these people have had their whole lives >>> to prepare for retirement and if they come up short at retirement time >>> they have only themselves to blame. >>> ... >> >>You may believe that you are not your brother's keeper, I guess that's your >>decision to make. But you sound an awful lot like the fellow, witnessing a >>pedestrian in a crosswalk who has been hit by a drunk driver, and grumbling >>that the pedestrian was at fault since he should have been driving instead >>of walking. I guess I come from a different educational process -- one >>which emphasizes compassion and instills the remembrance that one day we >>may find ourselves in a position of needing someone else's compassion. >>Sorry to take up other folks' time with a posting, but this sort of attitude >>is really disgusting. >>-- >I totally agree with you and I think I also had almost the same up-bringing >as you had.But, why not keep grandma and grandpa at home and taking care of >them instead of them being supported by SS. I would rather opt not paying the SStaxes but support the retirees directly. By leaving the responsibility to the >govt. we are creating a big mess here. I was really saddened when one old man >said: " One parent can take care of 10 children but not 1 of the 10 children >can take care of 1 parent". Sorry folks, I am really sad about the state of >old people. Its time we did something about that. >Balu Raman, br!duke!....... Goodness, why do we persist in viewing retired people as helpless? There are many who must rely on social security for financial wellbeing for a great variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that they should be considered as totally dependant in other ways. Old people also value their independence from their offspring and shouldn't be forced to live with them until such a time as both parties feel it is the right thing to do (each case has it's merits). There is no instant solution to these matters. Some old people have no children. Some people out-survive their children. Some people have children who are not in a possition to support their parents (handicapped possibly or not financially sufficiently well off) Some people don't get on with each other (children can be just as difficult as old folks -- I'm stating a fact not apportioning blame). Some people's children don't even live in a suitable region (how would you like to retire and live with your grandson if he were single and an North Sea diver or arctic research scientist or war correspondant or...) Some people... well I could go on for hours like this but I think I've made the point. Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. The fact that it has been mismananged and may not be most efficiently organized now, is neither here nor there. Any civilised society cares and feels it has a responsibility to the members in the society who for one reason or another cannot cope adequately with life (be they old, physically or mentally handicapped, poor, ill struck by natural disaster or whatever). Sometimes the problem is transient, sometimes it is not. And it is to these ends that Social Security is in part addressed. In this sense it is a safety net that for all the abuse it receives still lets some of the most needy through (if all the effort of preventing abuse were rechanelled into finding the truly needy, this would be a much better place). The concept is extended in most implementations to providing some independence from individuals and charity to the recipients. We've come a long way from the 19th century poor houses, lets keep it that way. And, the extended family is largely inapplicable to the late 20th century for many reasons -- often, it just ain't a practical proposition whatever one might wish. Sorry for taking so much space, but i feel strongly about this issue. -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)