Gerry wrote:

> Social Security is there to keep people from starving and/or dying in
> the street's like many world cultures.  It's done pretty well at that
> so far, so I'm not interested in figuring out the fastest way to kill
> it, while making rich folk richer.

But what of the fact that system will go bankrupt at projected rates, if nothing
is done about it? Japan's own system has suffered a deficit already, and it will
grow much worse as Japan approaches its future projection of 40% of the population
60 years and older.

Should the US continue raising the age at which full benefits can be received?
Should it require more years of payment to be eligible for even minimum benefits
(25 yrs. in Japan)? Should payments be raised? Should benefits be cut? Should full
payments be required on behalf of each member of the family if each is to receive
benefits or survivor benefits? Should benefits be denied those with enough income
or assets to look after themselves?

The intent of that safety net is admirable, but now it is in danger because people
are healthier and average lifespan increasing considerably beyond the age they
become eligible for benefits. Back in 1935, when of the Social Security Act was
passed, the average life expectancy was not yet 65. Nowadays, practically anyone
can receive benefits before they die, receiving much more than they ever paid in.

Is there another pyramid scheme on anything approaching the scale of Social
Security or the national pension scheme allowed to exist under the law, and just
what makes Social Security different?

It will not be pleasant, but as I consider myself no better than my ancestors who
lived in hardship, I hope to enjoy good health and work long enough to look after
myself and my family, allowing more benefits for the truly underprivileged.