Word: pensiones
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...quarter-century of writing and editing analyses of Social Security had convinced me that no one would cobble together even a jury-rigged fix for the system until five minutes before the first pension check bounced--if then. But now President Clinton really has put "saving Social Security" at the top of the nation's domestic agenda, sparking a debate unprecedented in its intensity. So maybe...
Sorry, but it won't wash. The size of the gap between Social Security tax collections and pension payouts over the next 30 or so years, and how far any specific proposal would go toward closing that gap, are still anybody's guess. And those guesses depend on such variables as the speed of economic growth, the future pace of inflation and the course of the stock market--all notoriously difficult to predict even a year ahead. Estimates clash so sharply as to invite suspicion that they are shaped more by political bias than by analysis...
...many pensioners, present and future, would be terrified of having their retirement income depend heavily on the short-term ups and downs of Wall Street. They would have to be guaranteed a fairly high pension still paid out of regular Social Security taxes--currently 12.4% of each employee's wages, split between worker and boss--no matter what...
...Security benefits only to those whose income from other sources is $35,000 a year or less. Payments to the better off would be reduced on a sliding scale starting at 7.5%; those with outside income of $185,000 or more would receive only 15% of the Social Security pension that they would qualify for without such a means test. Again, correct principle, but too drastic. Pensions should be reduced only for those earning $50,000 or more. The budget-balancing Concord Coalition estimates that this move would save the government $20 billion a year...
Individual investment accounts might help remedy this; whatever a woman earned on investments would be hers to keep and would add to the pension she would otherwise get. But much more should be done. The National Organization for Women advocates an income-splitting approach for married women: if a couple makes, say, a combined $60,000 a year, husband and wife would each be credited with $30,000 of earnings for Social Security purposes. This arrangement would be costly and no doubt difficult to sell to male legislators. But it sounds fair--a partial remedy for the discrimination that still...