Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!san From: san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) Newsgroups: net.taxes Subject: Re: SS deduction Message-ID: <884@peora.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-May-85 17:02:28 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.884 Posted: Fri May 3 17:02:28 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 01:56:49 EDT References: <5762@duke.UUCP> <121@pyuxh.UUCP> <632@ssc-vax.UUCP> <434@hou5h.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 54 > 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. > Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their > working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. The fact > > 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 > > 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) Even I feel very strongly about this issue but I totally disagree with the views above. If I decide that I shall not depend on the SS after my retirement then why should I pay it right now. The taxation rate as it is so high and when coupled with FICA deductions, the amount one takes home is nowhere comparable to the gross salary. I think the whole concept of sustaining people by charity i.e. unemployment benefits/welfare/SS etc. etc. is incorrect because it cannot be permanent solution. It is simply surviving because of inertia and the rate of contributions to it is not keeping pace with the increase in the number of people trying to claim it. Leaving aside the complex economics of the entire issue, it is apparent that the economic solutions being provided are temporary. An economy fluctuating the way US economy does from recession to sudden spurts of boom is ample evidence that economy is not healthy. Also, since the whole concept of welfare has evolved, where has it taken the country - TO BECOMING A DEBTOR NATION with a whopping budget deficit. How long do you think charity can be done when you don't have the money ? Now all that does not mean that I am heartless about the problems of homeless, old etc. etc. but I just don't think that the solution is correct. It's just a temporary one and some day either they will have to stop making payments or will run out of money. Sanjay Tikku -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.