Even More Ideas for Social Security

I couldn’t agree more with Paul O’Neill’s ideas (“A New Idea for Social Security,” Commentary, Feb. 15). I wrote a paper for college in 1985 that proposed much the same thing, only my idea was to allow young people to take some of the interest that is earned in the 18-year maturation period and invest it in college educations, new businesses, new homes or career aspirations. The principal would remain for later retirement, but it would be a wonderful way to give every young person a leg up in the world. And, of course it would secure future retirements.

My idea was to take the money from the dead, those who had left behind extraordinary amounts of money and investments, but it doesn’t matter where it comes from as long as we can agree as a society that each person has an equal right to a future in the wealthiest of all countries of the world, where real opportunity requires more than just a minimum wage.

Diane McBain

Frazier Park

*

Former Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill presents an interesting proposal for solving the Social Security problem. It makes it sound great that each child would have more than $1 million at age 65. He failed to mention that the $1 million would be worth only about one-seventh in today’s dollars because of a projected 3% inflation. With higher inflation it would be worth even less. The American public needs to get away from fuzzy math and get some true, hard numbers that take into account the many variables involved in our current Social Security program.

Leo Wyler

Los Angeles

*

O’Neill’s commentary is ludicrous in suggesting that denying Social Security benefits to lawbreakers (illegal aliens) would make the U.S. a less desirable place to live. Also, his statement that each person would “own” his/her account is bogus. If we own something, we can do with it what we please. Obviously, under O’Neill’s scheme, a person couldn’t touch the money unless he or she abided by all of the government’s rules and waited until retirement age or met some other criteria.

Worse, his scheme would be a gargantuan step toward totalitarianism by making Americans subservient to the government for their retirement benefits. Our freedom would be gone. Those who like O’Neill’s idea can implement it on their own by saving and investing their own money without the government’s surveillance or say-so. This assumes that taxes aren’t so high we cannot save any money.

Fred Akers

La Canada Flintridge

*

I found O’Neill’s piece on funding Social Security to be rational, straightforward and logical. Thus, there is little hope for its implementation.

Richard P. McDonough

Irvine

*

Why is no one pointing out that Social Security is insurance and not a get-rich investment scheme? Does your insurer give you back your premium if you don’t wreck your car or burn down your house before you die?

Can you insure your Cadillac, pay only 75% of the premium, have your insurance company replace it with a Neon if you total it and hope that your 25% outside investment added to the price of the Neon will buy a new Cadillac? Why is no one pointing out that to get rich you invest in 401(k) and/or IRA?

Ronald E. Hohn

Los Angeles