Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: social vs. defense spending
Message-ID: <29200247@uiucdcs>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 17:21:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200247
Posted: Tue Nov 12 17:21:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 21:04:48 EST
References: <792@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl.UUCP:792:uiucdcs:29200247:000:1144
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!renner    Nov 12 16:21:00 1985


>  ...they have paid into the Social Security fund and they have the 
>  right to the pension they have paid for.  Whether they should 
>  get the current level of benefits which amounts to more than
>  they ever paid into the system is another question.  But in deciding
>  this question one also has to calculate what their payments into the
>  system are now worth accounting for the interest rate...
>  				-- Tim Sevener (orb@whuxl)

1.  One has a legal right to the benefits of a pension one has bought,
    but no one has legal rights to SS benefits in this way.  If you insist,
    I'll post the pertinent Supreme Court decision.  SS benefits are
    dependent on the whim of Congress.

2.  SS is not a pension fund.  At any time the investments of a pension
    fund, plus interest, should equal or exceed the expected obligations of
    the fund.  The "obligations" of SS are in the trillions.  How much
    money is in the SS trust fund?

3.  The value of "contributions" to the SS fund should not be adjusted
    according to interest rates, because these contributions were *never
    invested*.

Scott Renner
ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner