Kerrey-Simpson Plan Is Worth Pursuing

Once again, all the myths and half-truths were trotted out to defend the world’s most celebrated Ponzi scheme in “Kerrey-Simpson Package Would Destroy Social Security Benefits” (July 9) by Times Board of Advisers member Robert Eisner. Eisner thinks the answers to saving the plan is increasing the birth rate and letting more hard-working immigrants into the country.

Is he not familiar with the wild economic success Chile has had since privatizing its Social Security system in 1981? By mandating that workers save 10% of their income, but giving them the option to invest it in private consortiums, the country has enjoyed unparalleled prosperity. Business has a ready source of capital for expansion. The average Chilean worker has a net worth of four times his annual income, while Americans average much less.

I am 39 and do not want my children paying tax rates of 27% to support me and my generation in my old age. The Kerrey-Simpson plan, by allowing me to cut my contribution 2% in exchange for an agreement to pay less benefits to me in the future, is a reasonable way to reduce government liability. I also think raising the retirement age to 70 is reasonable, given current life expectancies.

I expect the plan is dead on arrival, as most discussions about this subject are too emotional. However, seniors trying to protect Social Security should realize that our government’s failure to rein in deficit spending could lead to a crisis that forces our country to monetize the debt, making our currency worthless.

PETE TITTL

Bakersfield

*

As currently constructed, our retirement system is extremely costly and in no way all-inclusive.

We each contribute 7.35% of our gross pay to Social Security, as does our employer. The only possible place that our employer can obtain his 7.35% is to include this in the price of goods or services he sells; consequently, we all pay this amount indirectly. On top of this is pension funding, which brings the total cost of retirement to in excess of 20%, and possibly much more.

Contrast this with what retirement will evolve into. Everyone will have a 401(k) type of plan that everyone will be required to contribute to. The dynamics of compounding over 40 or 50 years, with a 10% contribution, will truly do, on an all-inclusive basis, what our current system will not and does not do.

Add to this a small amount for an earned income credit mechanism for those among us that, for whatever reason, were unable to accrue over their working lifetimes a proper retirement fund. This is realism and also is all-inclusive.

ROBERT E. BOLMAN

San Luis Obispo