Save Social Security!

[WriterAtHeart]

Just got this email from NOW (National Organization for Women):

Join us tomorrow, Nov. 30, in a National Call Congress Day to fight Social Security cuts! Thanks to those of you who have already pledged to call. It's not too late to commit to participating in this important event.

Call your Senators tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1-866-529-7630, toll-free. The operator will identify your senators by asking for your zip code. Call BOTH of your senators if you have time. It only takes a minute each.

If you're having trouble getting through on the toll-free number, you can look up your senators' direct lines on NOW's website.

Here's a sample script:
Hello, I am a constituent in [name of your state]. I am calling Senator [Last Name] to urge [her or him] to say no to Social Security benefit cuts. As a women's rights supporter, I am particularly concerned about the millions of women who depend upon Social Security. Due to unequal pay, time spent out of the workforce for caregiving, and having little to no savings, pensions or investments, women disproportionately rely on Social Security. Please don't cut benefits in any way, including by raising the retirement age. Thank you for your time.

Background:
The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform have proposed increasing the retirement age to 69 (making us work longer), deeply cutting benefits for middle-class workers and reducing annual Cost of Living Adjustments. We need your help to stop them!

Social Security is a promise that must not be broken -- we work hard and our payroll taxes pay for it. It belongs to our children, our parents, our neighbors and us. Throughout their lives, women on average are paid less then men, and they often work at part-time jobs or take extended leave from the workforce for raising children and other forms of caregiving. As a result, women are less likely to have pensions, investments or life savings, so they stand to lose the most if these cuts are made.

Help ensure that Social Security will be there, keeping middle-class women out of poverty and not forcing them to work until they are nearly 70.

If you haven't yet, please sign the "Count on Me" pledge promising to participate in the National Call Congress Day on Nov. 30. Then, forward this e-mail and tell your friends, family and co-workers to add their voices, too. Don't let politicians cut OUR Social Security!

[knock6495]

There's one small problem. The money is likely to run out unless we step up payments big time...

[WriterAtHeart]

There's one small problem. The money is likely to run out unless we step up payments big time...

The generation getting Social Security and that will be soon getting Social Security has been working for that right - isn't it stealing from them to deny them that money?

If Social Security is cut (as said in the NOW press release), women are going to suffer significantly more than men will, since many more women depend on Social Security money due to society's sexism based on women's role and that whole 77 cents to a man's dollar thing.

[knock6495]

The generation getting Social Security and that will be soon getting Social Security has been working for that right - isn't it stealing from them to deny them that money?

If Social Security is cut (as said in the NOW press release), women are going to suffer significantly more than men will, since many more women depend on Social Security money due to society's sexism based on women's role and that whole 77 cents to a man's dollar thing.

Uh, not really. Whose money are they going to be taking? (Ours. Just saying, it's essentially charity.) It's sweet that we want to keep Social Security at its original number, but I don't recall anything that says the United States Social Security Administration doesn't have the ability to amend their original rules. (Accounting major here, sorry. BLaw is part of the process.)

I think to call it "stealing" is silly. The government raises and lowers taxes all the time. (Well, incrementally over time. Same here.) People have better quality of life now, and they have the ability to work longer as well. It will be tougher for a few years.

As for the women/men issue, I don't know what to say. Equality needs to work in all fashions of life, including when we pay retirees. Some of that discrepancy is due to the "glass ceiling," and some of it is the jobs that women take and the time they feel they can afford as opposed to men. Either way, they don't have the money.

[knock6495]

the time they feel they can afford

What I meant by this was the time they might take off having kids, or that women value quality of life more (and ergo, less hectic hours) than men do. In the Orthodox world, for example, a lot of women go into speech therapy, a flexible profession.

[WriterAtHeart]

Uh, not really. Whose money are they going to be taking? (Ours. Just saying, it's essentially charity.) It's sweet that we want to keep Social Security at its original number, but I don't recall anything that says the United States Social Security Administration doesn't have the ability to amend their original rules. (Accounting major here, sorry. BLaw is part of the process.)

I think to call it "stealing" is silly. The government raises and lowers taxes all the time. (Well, incrementally over time. Same here.) People have better quality of life now, and they have the ability to work longer as well. It will be tougher for a few years.

As for the women/men issue, I don't know what to say. Equality needs to work in all fashions of life, including when we pay retirees. Some of that discrepancy is due to the "glass ceiling," and some of it is the jobs that women take and the time they feel they can afford as opposed to men. Either way, they don't have the money.

What I meant by this was the time they might take off having kids, or that women value quality of life more (and ergo, less hectic hours) than men do. In the Orthodox world, for example, a lot of women go into speech therapy, a flexible profession.

My mom has been working full time since she was 19, socking away that SSA money - she deserves to get it.

Re women/men, that's precisely it - because of society's sexist dictates (women must take off years from work to take care of kids, the glass ceiling, etc.) women depend on SSA money much more because they have less savings than men who have been working their entire lives for more money have - i.e., SSA cuts hurt women more.

Don't even get me started on the whole therapy thing, I'm going to offend too many people. Suffice it to say it's an embarrassment that rabbis are encouraging these bright girls (and boys) who could be doctors and lawyers to become speech/physical/occupational/knitting therapists. I knew one guy who was a genius and wanted to be a doctor, and he ended up as a dentist because that's what the rabbi told him, and now he's miserable because he wanted to be a doctor, not a dentist.

[GU3RNiCA]

I think to call it "stealing" is silly. The government raises and lowers taxes all the time. (Well, incrementally over time. Same here.) People have better quality of life now, and they have the ability to work longer as well. It will be tougher for a few years.

Actually, it's middle class people and up that are living longer and have better quality of life. the working class, working poor, and impoverished (which is a growing number of people) still have life expectancies that people had when the SSA was founded. So, if we don't save social security, it will be yet another gesture that America doesn't care about the underprivileged. And since women make up a much greater share of the underprivileged classes than men do, there is an obvious sexist element there.

[knock6495]

My mom has been working full time since she was 19, socking away that SSA money - she deserves to get it.

Re women/men, that's precisely it - because of society's sexist dictates (women must take off years from work to take care of kids, the glass ceiling, etc.) women depend on SSA money much more because they have less savings than men who have been working their entire lives for more money have - i.e., SSA cuts hurt women more.

Don't even get me started on the whole therapy thing, I'm going to offend too many people. Suffice it to say it's an embarrassment that rabbis are encouraging these bright girls (and boys) who could be doctors and lawyers to become speech/physical/occupational/knitting therapists. I knew one guy who was a genius and wanted to be a doctor, and he ended up as a dentist because that's what the rabbi told him, and now he's miserable because he wanted to be a doctor, not a dentist.

Honestly, let's not blame the rabbi. Anyone who has a bone in their spine wouldn't just blindly follow their rebbi for job advice...they'd make the decision on their own, then check to see if its okay.

Social Security cuts have got to happen. My mom has also been working for many years, and she'll have the same problems that other women and men will have. But the writing has been on the wall. If people live longer, they take more checks. People need to either pay more into Social Security or work longer.

The alternatives are equally unsavory (undoing Social, making people only pay towards their own retirement, having the government foot the bill and swear fealty to China). It's going to happen. So should women only have to work until 65?

[WriterAtHeart]

Honestly, let's not blame the rabbi. Anyone who has a bone in their spine wouldn't just blindly follow their rebbi for job advice...they'd make the decision on their own, then check to see if its okay.

Social Security cuts have got to happen. My mom has also been working for many years, and she'll have the same problems that other women and men will have. But the writing has been on the wall. If people live longer, they take more checks. People need to either pay more into Social Security or work longer.

The alternatives are equally unsavory (undoing Social, making people only pay towards their own retirement, having the government foot the bill and swear fealty to China). It's going to happen. So should women only have to work until 65?

Not really. They all become ST/OT/PT/KTs because that's what the rabbis suggest. (At least the ones I know...off the top of my head, I can think of four I know personally and gazillions of their friends who have the same lifestyles as they do.)

So nu, pay more into Social Security? I don't know enough about the specifics of the issue to give a real proposal here.

Who said that they only have to work until 65? They don't have to retire then. I mean there's usually employer pressure to retire (especially in the board of ed - my mom's best friend is nowhere near retirement age or enough years, but she's already being nudged into retirement), but not always.

[GU3RNiCA]

The alternatives are equally unsavory (undoing Social, making people only pay towards their own retirement, having the government foot the bill and swear fealty to China). It's going to happen. So should women only have to work until 65?

Or we could like, institute progressive taxation. This isn't "women should only have to work until 65". It's "social security cuts disproportionately affect poor people who disproportionately tend to be women".

[knock6495]

Or we could like, institute progressive taxation. This isn't "women should only have to work until 65". It's "social security cuts disproportionately affect poor people who disproportionately tend to be women".

I'm probably a Republican when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Don't we have enough progressive taxation in our income taxes? FICA taxes are regressive, but that makes sense. If people are all "contributing" to their retirement funds, there is little reason to say the rich should pay more. Hell, let's scrap the whole thing (and don't think that isn't an option we'll be seeing in the near future...or something similar to that).

The real problem that I have with sticking at 65 years is that I think that both men and women have the ability to work longer thanks to the leaps we have made in medicine, etc. We've added 15 years to our life expectancies since 1940. It's time to remove some of the liability that we owe each older person. (Gosh, that seems a bit cold and callous. But saying that a 70 year old to day is equivalent to a 65 year old back then is not a stretch.)

Heck, women tend to live approximately 5 years longer than men do, which means they already tend to make more off of Social Security. (You could argue that women should be contributing more to each year, because they as a group tend to benefit more. That's not necessary, though.)

To sum up: It's lovely that men tend to make more money as a whole, but that's not the point here. People physically can work until 69. This shouldn't affect women at all IF they remain working. (And if you weren't working and you don't have a disability...well, I don't feel for you, be you man or woman.)

[knock6495]

Not really. They all become ST/OT/PT/KTs because that's what the rabbis suggest. (At least the ones I know...off the top of my head, I can think of four I know personally and gazillions of their friends who have the same lifestyles as they do.)

So nu, pay more into Social Security? I don't know enough about the specifics of the issue to give a real proposal here.

Who said that they only have to work until 65? They don't have to retire then. I mean there's usually employer pressure to retire (especially in the board of ed - my mom's best friend is nowhere near retirement age or enough years, but she's already being nudged into retirement), but not always.

The Rabbis suggest it because those jobs are flexible. If you have a penchant for something else and you don't go through with it, then it really is your own fault. (Like my own decision to abandon math once I came to college.)

People have their own expenses to cover. Depending on who you ask, we're either just barely or not quite out of a recession currently. Making people pay more into Social doesn't seem like a strong long term solution, with the debt piling up. Removal of 3 years of annuities is.

Writer, you misunderstood what I meant by "have to work until 65." It's HAVE to. If you'd like to work after 65, then power to you.

[GU3RNiCA]

I'm probably a Republican when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Don't we have enough progressive taxation in our income taxes? FICA taxes are regressive, but that makes sense. If people are all "contributing" to their retirement funds, there is little reason to say the rich should pay more. Hell, let's scrap the whole thing (and don't think that isn't an option we'll be seeing in the near future...or something similar to that).

The real problem that I have with sticking at 65 years is that I think that both men and women have the ability to work longer thanks to the leaps we have made in medicine, etc. We've added 15 years to our life expectancies since 1940. It's time to remove some of the liability that we owe each older person. (Gosh, that seems a bit cold and callous. But saying that a 70 year old to day is equivalent to a 65 year old back then is not a stretch.)

Heck, women tend to live approximately 5 years longer than men do, which means they already tend to make more off of Social Security. (You could argue that women should be contributing more to each year, because they as a group tend to benefit more. That's not necessary, though.)

To sum up: It's lovely that men tend to make more money as a whole, but that's not the point here. People physically can work until 69. This shouldn't affect women at all IF they remain working. (And if you weren't working and you don't have a disability...well, I don't feel for you, be you man or woman.)

I should have clarified; when I said "progressive taxation" I meant "I think it is ridiculous that people in the top tax bracket only have a 10% higher rate than people of median income pay". Contrary to common Republican fiscal beliefs, I think if we went back to Clinton era tax rates (meaning, the top tax bracket would pay 39% in income taxes rather than 35%), the sky would not fall. It would, in fact, be quite fiscally responsible.

The life expectancy right now in the US 78.2. And while that's obviously a great leap from when the Social Security Administration was founded, that represents an average that is inflated by the fact that the life expectancy difference between rich people and non-affluent people is large and growing. In other words, only the people who have enough money to pay for it get access to proper healthcare, and people who can't afford it, who happen to be the people who rely most on social security, are not getting access to healthcare, and are not living much longer than they used to. It becomes a women's issue because women represent a larger share of poor people than men do.

The actual point here is, that when you raise the age at which people receive social security, it places a huge burden on poor people, who are not living much longer than they did when the Social Security Administration was founded. In other words, working class and poor people reach the end of their lives before more affluent people, and there is something very wrong about literally forcing people to work until they die, no?

[knock6495]

the life expectancy difference between rich people and non-affluent people is large and growing. In other words, only the people who have enough money to pay for it get access to proper healthcare, and people who can't afford it, who happen to be the people who rely most on social security, are not getting access to healthcare, and are not living much longer than they used to.


That sounds sort of compelling, but I would like to see data showing the life expectancy differences before I say anything. Maybe the differences are due to gang violence or any of a variety of factors, not lack of health care.

The reason why I still I'm against taking the rich more is that I see these taxes as "packing away money for old and infirm people," not a rich vs poor issue. We have plenty of other progressive taxes to work with; raise or lower taxes there. (It's like making sales taxes progressive...)

[GU3RNiCA]

That sounds sort of compelling, but I would like to see data showing the life expectancy differences before I say anything. Maybe the differences are due to gang violence or any of a variety of factors, not lack of health care.

The reason why I still I'm against taking the rich more is that I see these taxes as "packing away money for old and infirm people," not a rich vs poor issue. We have plenty of other progressive taxes to work with; raise or lower taxes there. (It's like making sales taxes progressive...)


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9104/LifeExpectancy_Brief.1.1.shtml

That's the CBO's report on the lifespan gap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/weekinreview/05numbers.html?_r=1

That's what else the country could buy with the 60 billion we'd have if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making $250,000 or more a year.

There is no arena in which taxes are not a class issue. If we were to get rid of the income tax and institute a tax on consumption, it would disproportionately affect underprivileged people; the lower classes would see a tax increase, and rich people would see a big tax cut. In other words, there is nothing fair about the "fair" tax.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/23/adding-fairtax/

Also, I don't understand how setting aside money for the old and infirm isn't a worthy cause. Doesn't society have a certain responsibility to keep the old and infirm out of abject poverty? Because that's where the non-rich old and infirm would be without social security.

[knock6495]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9104/LifeExpectancy_Brief.1.1.shtml

That's the CBO's report on the lifespan gap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/weekinreview/05numbers.html?_r=1

That's what else the country could buy with the 60 billion we'd have if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making $250,000 or more a year.

There is no arena in which taxes are not a class issue. If we were to get rid of the income tax and institute a tax on consumption, it would disproportionately affect underprivileged people; the lower classes would see a tax increase, and rich people would see a big tax cut. In other words, there is nothing fair about the "fair" tax.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/23/adding-fairtax/

Also, I don't understand how setting aside money for the old and infirm isn't a worthy cause. Doesn't society have a certain responsibility to keep the old and infirm out of abject poverty? Because that's where the non-rich old and infirm would be without social security.

I am sincerely sorry, but the first link isn't good enough for me. Who is to say that poor people don't live shorter lives because of things besides for inferior health care? Maybe it's because their quality of neighborhood is worse, etc.

By your logic, women should get less money per year because they live longer lives, more money b/c they make less money. African Americans should get more money (or money earlier) than whites. But those other factors are more ancillary than anything else. Poor people deserve more money than rich people.

I don't have a problem with setting aside money for the old and infirm. But they aren't so old and infirm as they were at 65 in 1940. That's all I am contending here.

(As for your opinion about the Bush tax cuts...I'm not going there right now. Make another thread.)

[WriterAtHeart]

Or we could like, institute progressive taxation. This isn't "women should only have to work until 65". It's "social security cuts disproportionately affect poor people who disproportionately tend to be women".

*^ I agree*

(hashkafah.com has an awesome smiley that's holding a sign that says "I agree" on it that I would use right now)

[WriterAtHeart]

The Rabbis suggest it because those jobs are flexible. If you have a penchant for something else and you don't go through with it, then it really is your own fault. (Like my own decision to abandon math once I came to college.)

Except then everyone in the community thinks you're a goy - "oh, SHE's the one who became a doctor? Ah...I always thought her skirts were too short..." "that's the one that become a lawyer and skipped learning? Interesting, I thought his yichus was better than that..."

[knock6495]

Except then everyone in the community thinks you're a goy - "oh, SHE's the one who became a doctor? Ah...I always thought her skirts were too short..." "that's the one that become a lawyer and skipped learning? Interesting, I thought his yichus was better than that..."

Well, that's what you tend to get in pretty tightly knit communities around the world. Just add the fact that things like this happen to your decision tree.

If you're asking for rabbis to be more understanding of other professions, then head to New Jersey. They'll just judge you for NOT becoming a doctor or lawyer.

[WriterAtHeart]

Well, that's what you tend to get in pretty tightly knit communities around the world. Just add the fact that things like this happen to your decision tree.

If you're asking for rabbis to be more understanding of other professions, then head to New Jersey. They'll just judge you for NOT becoming a doctor or lawyer.

Yeah, it's pretty much the Brooklyn (no offense to all yawl Brooklyners out there) crowd that acts like that, and then Queens etc. follows.

[GU3RNiCA]

I am sincerely sorry, but the first link isn't good enough for me. Who is to say that poor people don't live shorter lives because of things besides for inferior health care? Maybe it's because their quality of neighborhood is worse, etc.

By your logic, women should get less money per year because they live longer lives, more money b/c they make less money. African Americans should get more money (or money earlier) than whites. But those other factors are more ancillary than anything else. Poor people deserve more money than rich people.

I don't have a problem with setting aside money for the old and infirm. But they aren't so old and infirm as they were at 65 in 1940. That's all I am contending here.

(As for your opinion about the Bush tax cuts...I'm not going there right now. Make another thread.)


A study from the Congressional Budget office isn't "good enough" for you? In their 2007 National Vital Statistics report (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf) , the CDC said "For the total population, and for males and females separately, mortality is inversely associated with educational attainment; that is, the average risk of death decreases markedly with increasing educational attainment." And since educational attainment and income are directly related (that is an indisputable fact), and the leading causes of death in America are heart disease, cancer, stroke, and respiratory disease, I would say gang violence or "quality of neighborhood" is not the answer to why lower income people live longer. You also have to realize that not all low income people live in urban ghettos. In fact, rural white single mothers are more likely than any other demographic to be in poverty, which only reinforces the idea that it is, in fact, inferior healthcare that causes lower income people to die earlier.

Also, you completely twisted my argument. The entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not really okay to raise the social security eligibility age when the people who would be most affected by it are not living much longer than the did when social security was instated. I wasn't saying one group should get more money than another, or get money earlier or anything of the sort. Just that we should keep the eligibility age at 65.

[knock6495]

Also, you completely twisted my argument. The entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not really okay to raise the social security eligibility age when the people who would be most affected by it are not living much longer than the did when social security was instated. I wasn't saying one group should get more money than another, or get money earlier or anything of the sort. Just that we should keep the eligibility age at 65.

The problem that I had is that I still am under the impression that poor people in 2010 are living considerably longer than they were in 1940. Your report showed a growing split between life spans of the poor and rich, but it didn't really state how much each one has changed. If it has changed by 5 to 7 years (a low number in my opinion) from 1940, I think changing the retirement age is the prudent thing to do.

[GU3RNiCA]

I would say gang violence or "quality of neighborhood" is not the answer to why lower income people live longer.

I said that bit wrong. I meant why lower income people die sooner.