{"id":26,"date":"2010-08-31T19:51:23","date_gmt":"2010-09-01T02:51:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cfonseca160.wordpress.com\/2010\/08\/31\/social-security"},"modified":"2010-08-31T19:51:23","modified_gmt":"2010-09-01T02:51:23","slug":"social-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/blog\/2010\/08\/31\/social-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Social Security"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tuesday, August
\n31, 2010 <\/p>\n

Dear NCPSSM<\/i><\/b>,<\/p>\n

\u201cBoomsday\u201d is fast approaching. Are
\nwe considering age and the higher lifespan and increased functionality of our
\nolder beneficiaries? I am a young recipient. I am disabled by doctor\u2019s
\ndiagnosis. I appreciate every penny that comes in due to disability
\nentitlements. Without it, I am in a lurch. With it I am vulnerable; mostly
\nbecause it is not enough standing alone, even with all the work that I do in
\nvarious capacity, for me to survive. My income is low, while output is of great
\ncontribution. Company loyalty counts for little in terms of direct and regular pay.
\nBut, thanks to social security and family contributions, I am alive.<\/p>\n

I share some strategies with you to
\nkeep SOSEC vital. I have read an old article that applies today still. In it, are
\nviews that I share with the editor, and, I ad some personal strategies and
\nviews also. Payroll taxes among workers should be increased evenly across the
\nboard MODERATELY. Payout of benefits to entitled persons should be reduced, MODERATELY,
\nfor an initial period. Persons with history of higher earnings should receive
\nless \u201cout the gate\u201d. Social Security is based on a pooling principle to support
\nthe weaker, those who cannot work any longer, and those who are incapacitated
\nby society and deemed unfit for work to particular extents, measured by certain
\noutput of hours- disabled. They are the weakest.<\/p>\n

One tip would be to determine the
\nmedian salary for the last five years of a person at work, to serve as a
\nsliding scale for how much entitlement the beneficiary would receive after<\/b> working, and, how much they must
\npay into while<\/b> working if they
\nreturn to work. <\/p>\n

Among higher age beneficiaries, I
\nhope that parties are aware that people can live well into their nineties. Many
\nof them are productive into their late seventies, and taking this into
\nconsideration for pay out formulas is crucial to fairness for future and
\npresent recipients of SOSEC funds. <\/p>\n

While no one wants to be the group
\nof entitlement recipients to pay more than the other at any given time, the
\nmost vulnerable among us are those who receive smaller payments on \u201cfixed\u201d
\nincomes as opposed to those who paid higher taxes, expecting to receive more funding
\nin their retired years. The fact is that those who earned more should expect to
\nhave saved<\/b> more throughout their
\nworking years. Lack of good spending habits regardless of income level is not
\nsound fiscal behavior. And, those persons should expect that they can live on
\nas little as any other beneficiary who receives less than they do after communal
\nretirement.<\/p>\n

The most vulnerable are the
\ndisabled, independent of age level, and the disabled due to advanced age. Both
\nparties are prohibited from paying higher taxes. It\u2019s worth noting that the
\nlast decade or so has seen very little inflation. That means that there has
\nbeen less burden on Congress to act swiftly in SOSEC policies, but during such
\ntime, conditions have been right for fair formulas to be drafted for SOSEC
\npayout. Has Congress been busy devising such a formula?<\/p>\n

The group of recipient which I
\nbelong to, cannot be expected to keep SOSEC financially strong. That is why,
\nespecially if that group grow in number, the payout formula must be adapted (if
\nit has not already been) to be lean and strong, and resilient. Resilient-
\nmeaning that as a cornerstone to formula, we must work with correct age numbers
\nand not just one retirement age.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>widow benefits must be adjusted so as not to
\nimpinge on beneficiaries who never marry.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>the payroll tax must be raised across the board
\nmore aggressively among workers with salaries above 250K\/anum.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>benefits must be re-evaluated annually, so as to
\nensure that payroll taxes will be properly\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span>assessed in determining unique SOSEC payout at a later or present date
\nper individual.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>minimum payout must be sufficient for a decent
\nstandard of living among disabled persons as well as retirees. More benefit is
\nthen commensurate with payroll tax bracket and a lifetime average income index.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>for those who go back to work, their benefits
\nshould be suspended or reduced during work dependent on their pay level.<\/p>\n

*While no one wants to pay more
\ntaxes, SOSEC must remain in tact and healthy for many decades to come.<\/p>\n

I think that the
\nNCPSSM can achieve this; and, I applaud them today if they have success with
\nCongress. Any fair formula is up to the legislators to hash out. That\u2019s what
\nthey\u2019re paid for and that\u2019s what we\u2019ll vote on.<\/p>\n

The combined young
\nand disabled are not equipped to shoulder more burdon unless they are high wage
\nearners, in which case they should pay higher payroll tax. A persons benefits
\nshould be at a higher level only upon adequate annual assurances that a baseline
\ncoverage of all lower than $250,000 annual pay, recipients, is met. No American
\nshould live on less than $950.00 a month.<\/p>\n

Also, we must
\naccept that a singular retirement age is an \u201cinside the box\u201d way of thinking.
\nThere is no one age which applies to everyone. There are individuals in their
\n40\u2019s and 50\u2019s with less ability to contribute to national GDP than some
\nglobe-trotting, benefit receiving 76 year olds. And the 76 year old might have
\nmore on a fixed income, than the disabled \u201cyouth\u201d does by comparison. So again,
\na formula must be devised not according to retirement age, but rather age-in-comparison
\nto disability status, hours working, and income. Payroll taxes must be adjusted
\nas employer compensation for driving mileage according to gas prices are. If we
\ncan slide that back and forth, then we should learn to slide payroll taxes
\naround as well.<\/p>\n

In today\u2019s day,
\nregardless of age, some people can contribute much and others not. Moreover,
\nworkers of all age resign, are fired, quit, return to work, or stay at work, or
\nare homemakers without pay, etc. etc. Hence, an entitlement scale must be adhered
\nto in a manner similar to IRS\u2019s oversight. If one is not disabled, such person
\ncan expect their benefits (later received while not working) to be less net,
\nupon reaching non-working years. If they should choose to raise their SOSEC
\npayout index, they can work more or return to work and declare a later age of
\nretirement. Simple and fair.<\/p>\n

Finally, I
\nreference former President George Bush and former presidential hopeful Al Gore.
\nBoth had plans of engaging the market with the Social Security Administration.
\nFlash forward to today, Wall Street had its bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac
\nhad their bailout, banks had theirs, while individuals and their SOSEC have not
\nhad theirs. Who mismanaged money? Who got punished? Not even treasury bonds as
\na proposed device for raising SOSEC funds is a secure enough guarantee, nor is
\nit high yielding. That is why the proposed measures from both of these men were
\nan idea that should not be put into practice. Who can bail out SOSEC if global
\nmarkets force a crash? The answer is no-one, willingly.<\/p>\n

Some jobs simply
\ndon\u2019t pay enough. Worker loyalty to one company is nearly chided in today\u2019s day
\nin age. But SOSEC must be the equalizer for such phenomena. RSP\u2019s and similar
\nschemes are just that\u2026 schemes for rich hopefuls that mimic the speculative
\n\u201cbeer goggles\u201d of \u201cFannie\u201d and \u201cFreddy\u201d among other. Also, matching federal
\ndollars for spending accounts is a poor solution due to the reasons just
\nmentioned. They would simply take money out of \u201cthe pot\u201d and divert funds with
\nrisk. The basis of SOSEC is designed and should remain so, on a pooling
\nprinciple, just like any state or federal tax. <\/p>\n

The system does
\nnot have to be broken. And many \u201cseniors\u201d don\u2019t have \u201cone foot in the grave\u201d
\n(in fact they\u2019re still running most of our institutions) they are as viable as
\nthey ever were even with the estimated \u201cboomsday\u201d fast approaching, and with
\nall the scientific health advancement we know of, they can remain in the work
\nforce much longer than perhaps the current pay out formula suggests that they
\ncan, whatever it is. They must remain a contributing force, lest they let the
\nweakest income earners \u201chold the bag\u201d with record deficits. I don\u2019t see how
\nsuch direction can help the democratic party, or any other.<\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The
\nproposed plans (which I reference in no complete detail in this essay) were
\nsuggested plans at one time by the former president George W. Bush and
\npresidential hopeful Mr. Al Gore, respectively. The Consumer Report<\/i> (Oct. 2000) publication, is credited with providing
\nfurther detail about both gentlemen\u2019s proposed actions. Notable, as well, is
\nthe statement by the editor that the federal government would be \u201cdebt free by
\n2012.\u201d *This claim was made prior to both the Iraq and Afghan wars. Only 2
\nyears before we\u2019re debt free? <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I have
\nmade this letter for the N<\/b>ational C<\/b>ommittee to P<\/b>reserve S<\/b>ocial S<\/b>ecurity and M<\/b>edicare publicly available for reading on my blog. I am the
\noriginal author of this letter. I act independently of the NCPSSM organization
\nby advising them herein, without pay, for this consult and unsolicited advice,
\nas an active and concerned member of the NCPSSM (to date), who is often requested
\nof for signature of petition drives and funding solicitations carried out by
\nthe NCPSSM for their political purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I cannot accept any liability for the
\nfailed adherence or the adherence, to any policies mentioned herein. The NCPSSM
\nis invited to put such policy in place with its credential and ability to encourage
\nlaw enactment within the Congress, without any request or mandate of favor in
\nreturn.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Chris Fonseca <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, August 31, 2010 Dear NCPSSM, \u201cBoomsday\u201d is fast approaching. Are we considering age and the higher lifespan and increased functionality of our older beneficiaries? I am a young recipient. I am disabled by doctor\u2019s diagnosis. I appreciate every penny …<\/span> Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-and-wellness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}