Conference 7.286::digital

    I do not think it is a question of those with less service subsidizing
    those with more service. If I recall what the document said, those with
    LOTS of service (>25)would be fully paid by Digital. Those with less service
    would be expected to assume a greater role in paying for their OWN
    coverage, using a sliding scale of 24 years down to 10 years, with the
    maximum reduction in digital paid benefits of 30%.
    
    Might not be pleasant, but neither is the burden of carrying the full
    health benefits of all retirees. Do the math. As we mature as a
    workforce, and retire, we place an increasingly large burden on the
    corporation. And, hopefully, we will live longer in the future than
    now, so the problem only gets worse. 
    
    Sounds a lot like the problem of society in general struggling with
    what to do about rising health care costs and rising life expectancies.
    It ain't an easy solution.

    The earlier reply should not say 'fully paid by digital' but rather
    'receive the maximum level of Company support'.

    
    Re: .0
    
    > Does it make sense to carry this over to health benefits?
    
    Why not?  All Digital is saying is that they will support your
    health benefits based on the amount you contributed to the company
    when you were working using years of service as the metric.  Would
    it be fair to find the lowest common denominator that the company
    could support for all cases and make that the norm?  What if someone
    worked 35 years for one company earning lots of longevity benefits
    there and then came to Digital for 5 years just before retirement.
    Would it be fair to other Digital employees to give that employee
    the same level of support when s/he wasn't around to contribute
    as much?  There are lots of ways of looking at it and this seems
    like a reasonable compromise to me.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    
    these days just lasting 5 years with digital is a bigger milestone than 
    it used to be.
    
    	

    My guess is that we can kiss any idea of a SERP before 1/1/94 good bye.
    
    I joined this company and continued working for this company with a
    belief backed up by company policy that when I retired I would receive 
    health benefits.  Now, after working 35 years (depending if DEC is still 
    around in in 17 years time) in addition to my $250 a week full retirement 
    benefit I may also not have much in the way of provided health coverage.
    
    Great -- that improves my morale tons!

    I found the following interesting with that article:
    
    "Why is Digital's full cost sharing based on 25 years of service?"
    
    Answer...."Our research indicated that 25 years was considered to be
               FULL CAREER by most company and industry standards"
    
    	10...15...20 years seems pretty FULL to me. Heck...the last
    	2 years has been overflowing.
    
    					Rick

    Those 6 digit income folks who decided this course of action also share
    your sense of grief. They too will share the burden.
    

The thing that bothers me about this plan is not that the level of
retirement benefits is relative to the number of years of service.
What bothers me is that you don't get full "vesting" in retirement
health benefits until 25 years!!!  In the old "no layoffs" days, that 
*might* have been reasonable -- it was more a matter of your choice
whether you stayed or not.  These days, who in the world can manage to
stay 25 years at one company?  I've got 13 years, but the next 12 will
be a lot harder, even if Digital is around for all 12 years.  

A few years back new laws were passed regarding vesting in retirement
programs.  The result is that you are fully vested (get paid 100% of
what you've earned) after no more than 10 years of service.  I believe
that this was passed in response to companies who required extremely
long (and in practice seldom achievable) service periods to obtain
retirement vesting.  Hopefully the impending health care reform will 
address the issue of retirement health benefits.

	Hanging on,
	Larry

PS:  Is .7 meant to be taken seriously?  If it isn't, then a smily face
should be included.  If it is meant seriously, then a few facts about
how they are sharing the pain would add verisimilitude to what is
otherwise a dry and unconvincing bromide.  Note that folks like Palmer
are independently wealthy -- his retirement benefits could be zero and
he'd feel no pain.  I believe most (if not all) of the upper level folks
are in a similar position, albeit most are not as well off as Palmer.

    
    	RE:.-1
    
    	a nit: 
    
    	I thought the laws were changed to 5 years for 100% vesting in the
    	retirement program.
    
    	Ed

    If you are under 50, stand-by for never being able to retire.
    
    The Congress, for example, is considering changing the laws to deny 
    social security for those who have contributed to it all their lives 
    but are also drawing a military pension, also earned. They are now 
    claiming that this is "double dipping the country can't afford." 
    
    The implications of such thinking for _any_ pension fund -- private 
    or public -- are not good.
    
    
    kbs
    
                                                                 

    While It sounds nasty, it is about time they dis something about
    "Double Dipping" because it is something we cannot really afford.
    
    Has a person (recently deceased) brag about his combined governmebt
    retirements, (Military, etc, and RAILROAD, which is another "govt"
    backed thingy) plus social security from 10 years exposure to it's
    contributions, was greater then he was paid at the highest paying
    position he held.
    
    Sigh,
    		BIll
    
    
    PS:  I could see maximizing combined benefits, and making the
    	various govenrnment, or government backed, retirement
    	benefits coordinated.
    
    	Also remember that Social Security was an INSURANCE, not a
    	retirement fund when it was formed.  Then corporations started
    	reducing their pension plans by the amount of applicable Social
    	Security "retirement benefits" and the government stepped up the
   	benefits, and ... the beat goes on.
    
        Also, they have been doig a great job (and Hillbilly may exceed the
    	rest) to make it impossible for one to build up one's own
    	retirement fund.
    
    	  You cannot contribute to an IRA unless you cannot afford to.  
    
          You cannot benefit from earning money by saving long term.
    
          You shouldn't be allowed ANY BENEFIT of long term investing
    		(Billy is looking to a more equitable definition of
    		 rich here, and I thing he is down to about 80 K before
    		long term gains get the full treatment).
    
          You should pay tax on dividends recieved, which are the companies
    	       earnings, for the portion you own, which are already taxed.
    
    	  If you have a small business (which is the current job generator)
    		they have been making noised that you should pay higher
    		tazes then your huge corporate setups.
    
    	And the beat goes on,
    
    PPS:  Paul harvey noted that for every .50 of spending cuts proposed,
    	  there is $14 of new spending being proposed currently in BilHilly
    	  town, and the "medical" plan isn't even in.
    
    

    re. last - I'm sorry, but I disagree.
    
    Person works for, say, 45 years. For, say, 24 of those years, he is in
    the Army. For all 45 years he is required to pay social security tax.
    He retires, and receives a military pension based upon his time in
    service WHICH WAS A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT -- A
    CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. He hits 65 and the government says, "Sorry. We
    don't care about the bundles of SS money you paid for 45 years. You
    aren't getting any of it back because you are already getting an Army
    pension.
    
    That's indefensible because he never had a choice about contributing to
    SS while he was in the Army, plus he also paid SS for the 21 years he
    worked in a civilian job. If he doesn't get SS, that's "double
    confiscation."
    
    ken
    

    re: all replies about double-dippers
    
    It's been my observation that every time someone complains about
    another person as a 'double-dipper', envy is involved.  Pure, simple,
    un-adulterated ENVY!  There isn't any such thing as a 'double-dipper'
    when you consider the BS that someone must contend with in the military
    or other branch of service.  If a person spends 20 years in the
    military and then another 20 years in industry, he has contributed 2
    careers-worth of labor for the economy and has EARNED those
    retirements.
    
    That person has also payed 2 careers (or more) into SS and has a right
    to that pension, as well, upon retirement from the labor force.
    
    The statement that we can't afford 'double-dippers' means that some
    bureaucrat can't pay for his pet project and yours with the money
    available; so, guess what must go?
    
    cw

re Note 2576.14 by AMCUCS::YOUNG:

>     It's been my observation that every time someone complains about
>     another person as a 'double-dipper', envy is involved.  

        I would think that everyone should be a 'double-dipper' upon
        retirement, i.e., drawing upon both social security and upon
        the their employer(s) pension plans.  It just happens that
        the government is a major employer, so some people will get
        two checks from the government, but that is just coincidence,
        not waste or fraud!

        (Actually, I hope most people could be 'triple-dippers' --
        drawing upon savings/investments as well as the other two
        sources.  Perhaps they should even be able to work to the
        extent that they are able and wish to work.  That would
        hardly be a corrupt society!)

        Bob

    
    I don't have any problem with double dippers.  After all, they DID 
    (as someone has pointed out), work for 40 years (in 2 different
    places), to be a double dipper.  My father-in-laws neighbor is a
    TRIPPLE Dipper (double/tripple dipper ONLY refers to someone who
    is drawing more than one pension from the Gov't.).
    
    The part that REALLY GETS ME FLAMED IS the S.O.B. that is 18, 19, 20
    and is getting a social security check because his father died when he
    was UNDER 18.  Now your talking about a person who is perfectly able
    to work and make an honest living.  They get the SS check every month
    and do NOTHING but sit around and drink and watch TV.
    
    I know this is happening because 2 of my sons friends do EXACTLY that.
    Really make my kid mad too, he has to work while his friends goof off
    all day....I already did....tell him to find different friends.
    
    Talk about a worthless, dead-beat, looser, no-count cancer to society....
    
    If you want to START to fix the SS system, start with these loosers.
    
                                                                        f

    RE: 17
    
    Unless things have radically changed since 1970 (possible, I agree)
    SS survivor's benefits terminate when the child reaches 18 UNLESS
    HE IS A FULL-TIME STUDENT when they extend to 22. Also, the benefits
    for the surviving spouse terminate with the benefits of the last 
    child. The fact that these kids sit around and don't work has more 
    to say about the surviving parent/guardian's values than the
    generosity of the SS benefits. 
    
    My father paid SS from the time he joined the army in 1942 until he
    died in 1960 (at age 35). I was 11 at the time. He never collected
    any retirement benefits; I collected survivor's benefits until I 
    graduated from college at 21. I worked at least part-time from the 
    time I was 15.
    
    At any rate, if a means test is implemented in the SS system, the
    double and triple dippers will see the windfall shrink along with 
    others of higher income. 
    
    Linda

    Unless things have changed drastically, active-duty military people do
    not pay into the SS system.  Instead they pay into the military
    retirement system.  This system allows them to retire with 50% pay
    after 20 years of service or 75% pay after 30 years service.  Moreover,
    the monthly pension begins upon retirement (at which time the retired
    person could be as young as 38 or 40), and are fully indexed for
    inflation.  This means that the retired person could get a full-time
    civilian job and still get a fully-indexed military pension while getting a
    paycheck too.  Nice work.  Not to mention indexing, something that most
    private pensions do not have.

    A clarification of .18:
    
    My father got out of the service in 1947 and worked and paid SS until
    1960. Sorry if I made it to sound like he was in the Army the whole
    time. 
    
    Linda

re Note 2576.19 by ODIXIE::GILPATRICK:

>     This means that the retired person could get a full-time
>     civilian job and still get a fully-indexed military pension while getting a
>     paycheck too.  Nice work.  Not to mention indexing, something that most
>     private pensions do not have.
  
        But if it was part of the compensation they were offered when
        they signed up, then it may be perfectly appropriate
        considering the importance of the job and its unique demands.

        There are a few professions that get even better deals.

        Bob

    Re: .21
    
    This is exactly the reason given for the fairness of the present
    military retirement system: it is part of the total compensation
    package, was a part of the deal when they signed up, and is therefore
    fair.  Perhaps, but there is no denying that the retirement portion of
    the military compensation package is better than the typical civilian
    retirement package.
    
    	Civilian		Military
    	about 40%	 	50%/75%		Amount of salary paid
        not indexed		indexed		Indexed for inflation
    	age 62/65	        age 40/50	paid at age
    
    Of course, civilian retirees get SS on top of a company pension, but
    then so do "double dipping" Military retirees.  That's what
    double-diping is.  The chief advantage to a military pension is the
    indexing and the MUCH earlier age at which benefits are drawn.

    re .19  
    
    I guess that means I should apply for a refund of all the SS I paid in
    while I was in the Navy!!
    
    The entire military pay system justifies much-lower-than average pay
    precisely because of the rich retirement "carrot" for 20 years service.
    
    In any case, Military members DO pay SS on their pay (not allowances).
    
    Double dipping for military retirement which was funded by near-slave
    wages in the first place is their right.  Do you want your SS reduced
    by the amount of your private industry pension??  The situations are
    analogous.
    
    I'm Not retired military -- but we are endangering all retirement+SS if
    we tacitly accept the Military retirement reduction proposed.
    
    Steve
     

    We are all doing lot's more work, when are we going to start seeing
    some rewards?  I say NO to more cuts in benefits, and salary increases
    for that matter, and YES to a show of appreciation and loyalty toward
    the emplyess!

    added to my reply of .24:
    
    I really feel everyone has gotten off the subject.  Don't let Digital
    off the hook if they plan to continue cuts.  Remember we are all still
    here and have picked up other's work as well.  It is THEIR
    responsibility to our loyalty to provide reasonable benfits.  We are
    already paying more since last year and the year before.  And when did
    you get your last raise?  We at Digital DON'T work for the government,
    so let's keep to the subject, our loss of benefits at DIGITAL.  It is
    Digital's lack of concern toward its employees that is causing low
    moral and it's employees to turn on each other due to fear and envy. 
    Everyone's situation is different and without knowing each individual's
    circumstances it cannot properly be debated.  We are not talking Social
    Security benefits, we are talking DIGITAL benefits.  The question
    should be, what are we going to do about it?
                                                              

...but the fact is most of the large corporations are cutting health benefits
for retirees.  Some of this is motivated by the change in accounting rules,
which is causing companies to carry large liabilities on their books to cover
the projected REAL cost of supplying health benefits for the retirees. Some of
it is probably motivated by the continued rapid growth in health costs, and by
the fact that average life expectancy continues to go up as well.

This can't have been an easy decision to make, and years of service seems as
fair a metric as one could apply if you have to ask some retirees to contribute 
to their health plans.  I haven't seen any better metric proposed here.  

    Re: .17-
    
    >The part that REALLY GETS ME FLAMED IS the S.O.B. that is 18, 19, 20
    >and is getting a social security check because his father died when he
    >was UNDER 18.  Now your talking about a person who is perfectly able
    >to work and make an honest living.  They get the SS check every month
    >and do NOTHING but sit around and drink and watch TV.
    
    	There's a lot wrong here. After 18, the benefits stop if you're not
    a student. My father died when I was an infant. The SS money was saved
    and permitted me to continue my education after high school. 18, 19,
    and 20 year olds are not legally allowed to drink in most, if not every 
    state. Perhaps you can tell us how your son's friends maintain their
    cash cow and also circumvent the liquor laws.
    
    	Also, I consider your sensitivity to the emotional effect of loosing 
    one's father as a total zero. Try being a father after never knowing
    yours.
    
    Phil

RE:                   <<< Note 2576.19 by ODIXIE::GILPATRICK >>>

>    Unless things have changed drastically, active-duty military people do
>    not pay into the SS system.  Instead they pay into the military
>    retirement system.  This system allows them to retire with 50% pay
>    after 20 years of service or 75% pay after 30 years service.  Moreover,
>    the monthly pension begins upon retirement (at which time the retired
>    person could be as young as 38 or 40), and are fully indexed for
>    inflation.  This means that the retired person could get a full-time
>    civilian job and still get a fully-indexed military pension while getting a
>    paycheck too.  Nice work.  Not to mention indexing, something that most
>    private pensions do not have.


	I do not believe that this was ever the case. I was in the Navy
	from 1969 to 1977 and I always paid SS. During that time 
	Civilian employess to the Gov't did not pay SS. This was changed
	in the late 70's. I believe at the current time all civilian employees
	pay SS.

    .25  Right on the mark Brother, on all points.
    
    In addition; I get rather weary of hearing people say that Digital 
    GIVES us our benefits.  No they don't!  We earn them.  What can we 
    do to stop the erosion?  My guess is, this side of the recession, 
    Not Much! 
    

Last year, Digital paid $148 million for retire health benefits.

That cost will go up with 
	- increased cost for medical medical expenses for
	  current retires and
	- additional retiring employees.

It is a very difficult choice between say reducing health benefits
and TSFO's more employees.

Gim


From:	NROMTS::MRGATE::NEST::DICS_DIST" 19-MAY-1993 21:15:31.22
To:	@Distribution_List
CC:	
Subj:	YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS

From:	NAME: DICS_DIST <DICS_DIST@NEST@MRGATE@NROMTS@NRO>
To:     See Below

YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS
For U.S. Employees of Digital Equipment Corporation          May 1993
         
...

Medical, Retiree Medical and Dental Assistance Plan
     This is a summary of the annual report of the Medical, Retiree 
Medical and Dental Assistance Plan 04-2226590:506 for period from July 
1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. The annual report has been filed with the 
Internal Revenue Service, as required under the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
         
Basic Financial Statement
     The value of Plan assets, after subtracting liabilities of the 
Plan, was $0 as of June 30, 1992, compared to $0 as of June 30, 1991. 
During the Plan Year, the Plan did not experience a change in its net 
assets.  During the Plan Year, the Plan had employer contributions of 
$148,854,178, employee contributions of $31,188,950, and earnings from 
investments of $287,901.
     Plan expenses were $180,331,029. These expenses included $0 in 
administrative expenses, $180,331,029 in benefits paid to participants 
and beneficiaries and $0 in other expenses.
         

     RE:  .17
    
    >>The part that REALLY GETS ME FLAMED IS the S.O.B. that is 18, 19, 20
    >>and is getting a social security check because his father died when he
    >>was UNDER 18.  Now your talking about a person who is perfectly able
    >>to work and make an honest living.  They get the SS check every month
    >>and do NOTHING but sit around and drink and watch TV.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      
    EXCUSE ME !
    
    My father was killed in WWII.  I used his SS payments for my college
    tuition.   As others have pointed out, I received those payments beyond
    the age of 18 *only* because I was a full time student.  I graduated
    when I was 21 and received no more payments.
    
    Now, I expect there are abuses of the system.  However, your blatant
    generalization is patently wrong!
    
    Chet

    
    RE: .27 & .31
    
    Yes.  You are correct.  SS DOES continue ***IF*** you are a student.
    
    That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work.  As you can see, there is a
    major flaw in the system.  How do these kids do it?  I don't know,
    but if I could find out I would turn them in.
    
    As far as I know, the "legal" age to drink in every state is 21...BUT,
    as everybody knows kids at any age can get anything they want to drink.
    
    I ment no offense to those who have lost their father and used the
    system honestly.  I still have my father (he will be 80 in Sept.), but
    my mother died when I was 9.  We got no SS from her side either.  My
    dad usually worked anywhere from 10 to 16 or 18 hours EVERY day so we
    could eat and pay the bills.  So, I had no mother to bring me up, and 
    saw very little of my father.
    
    Those who have lost their father and use the system honestly are
    entitled to the money, as long as they use it for what it is supposed
    to be used for.  The ones that get me flamed are the ones I spoke of
    before.  The dead-beats and loosers that are cheating the system and
    taking money that should be going to people that need it, and/or are 
    entitled to it.
    

    They may be deadbeats and losers, but they would very likely be
    deadbeats and losers anyway, whether they were receiving SS or not.
    
    You obviously disapprove of their behaviour -- fine, your choice. 
    Don't blame their SS benefits for their behaviour, however.

    
>    As far as I know, the "legal" age to drink in every state is 21...BUT,
>    as everybody knows kids at any age can get anything they want to drink.
 
	It was 18 in DC, but I suppose that's not classified as a state, I
	was positive there were others.

	Is there a legal age to drink, or is it just to buy, or consume on
	licensed premisis.

	We have a legal "drinking" age of 18 here, that's for buying
	alchohol and drinking it in a pub etc., but you can drink at home
	at any age.
	   
	Anyway, our government pensions look as if they are going the same
	way......pay into national insurance all your life, and then, if
	you have a private pension built up - tough.  This is speculation
	at the moment, the actual proposals will be known soon.   

	Heather

>>    As far as I know, the "legal" age to drink in every state is 21...BUT,
>>    as everybody knows kids at any age can get anything they want to drink.
> 
>	It was 18 in DC, but I suppose that's not classified as a state, I
>	was positive there were others.
    
    It was 18 in a lot of places. I believe that it's 21 in the whole US
    now. 
    
>	Is there a legal age to drink, or is it just to buy, or consume on
>	licensed premisis.
>
>	We have a legal "drinking" age of 18 here, that's for buying
>	alchohol and drinking it in a pub etc., but you can drink at home
>	at any age.
    
    I think it's the same here. Though you can be charged with a crime if
    you give alchohol to other peoples children. I'm not sure though as I
    don't drink.
    
    			Alfred

re: .35

I think it varies from state to state.  I know there are some states where
it's illegal for parents to allow their children to drink alcoholic 
beverages at home, but I think there are other states where that's allowed.
And, of course, we still have states with dry counties, in which possession 
or use of alcohol by anyone may be prohibited.

   Gary

    Again, let's not forget we are talking Digital benefits, not SSI, not
    the drinking age.  I'm, sure there are other notes files for those
    subjects.  And yes, Digital pays lot's for our benefits, so do we.  But
    the money they pay comes out of the money we help them make.  It comes
    out of the profits.  So, we make a little less, Digital makes a little
    less.  Only to those that make the 6 figures and also make the
    decisions to make cuts are not affected as we are since we make alot
    less.  So while we continue to make less, this company that would not
    be without employees, is going for more of the take.  It's following a
    new trend...
    
    One thing I would like to add just to pass along a bit of knowledge
    about SSI death benefits.  My husband died when my daughter was 4.  I
    don't get benefits and I have worked full-time ever since.  I wish I
    could have saved her benefits for college, I cannot.  They help support
    her each month.  That is what they are for, insurance paid by the
    parent to cover loss of support if loss of parent occurs.  Each
    circumstance is different and I as I said before cannot be debated by
    those who are uninformed.  The children should not suffer, and I cannot
    speak for those two mentioned earlier, but it is not the norm.
    
    If Digital were not cutting our benefits we have earned out of the
    profits we have made them, we would not be jumping on each others
    backs trying to take away what another has earned because we are at
    risk of losing more.  I don't know what we can do at Digital, but I do
    know with 35,000 job cuts they are paying alot less.  To a company who
    brings in billions of dollars, $180 million (before the job cuts,
    remember) is a pittance.
    
    What I see going on, not only in Digital, but other large corporations
    as well is a movement away from employee benefits.  Look at how we have
    laid people off and now outsource, no benefits.  Look at how we have
    closed factories here and moved them overseas to underdeveloped
    countries where labor is dirt cheap and guess what, no benefits.  Look
    at all the temporary employees at Digital, guess what, no benefits. 
    Nike is doing it, they moved their factories overseas and pay their
    workers 18 cents per day and no benefits.  Allstate insurance is
    implementing a program by which their agents (my broker has been
    with them 25 years) will no longer work for them per se, but be
    independent contractors, guess what, no benefits.   Which company was
    it (Boeing?) that revoked it's commitment to retirement benefits to
    retired employees last year?
    
    I understand these are tough times and we must all take some of the
    recoil.  However, I feel large companies are going too far.  Only when
    companies realize they cannot just drop their responsibilities and
    loyalty to its employees will they realize the benefits, higher
    productivity.  I don't know if you saw the Art Buchwald column where he
    talked about corporations making profits on buying out employees (raises
    stock prices) where everyone is in line and the guy giving out the pay
    says he'll sell out after everyone else is gone, until the CEO walks
    through the line and sells out.  Then he decides he better, and a
    customer walks in and wants to by a screwdriver (the hypothetical
    company manufactured tools) and he said, yeah the warehouse is through
    there, help yourself - get it, there were no employees.
                             
    

    
    

	> 2576.34

		Government pensions, corp. pensions, private pensions....
		It makes no difference, it all equals no pension.  I fear
		that there may be a larger plan ....it is called re-distribu-
		tion of wealth (your's, that is).

	> 2576.37

		As for "no bennies",  the direction is towards "equal"
		benefits and I think both government and business are
		deciding how it will work and who will pay.  I think
		workers in their 40's and 50's will pay the most until
		equalization is in place.  Those in their 40's and 50's
		have paid in the most, but will receive less until we
		all have the same health and retirement bennies.  And
		that is just for the U.S.  I wonder how much we all will
		pay for global equity?  We had better be prepared.  There
		is such global disparity between the haves and have-nots.
		Wealthy nations have to help those not so fortunate nations
		or there will be much bigger problems than whether or not
		we have retirement benefits.  But that's another subject.


ems

      The Military changed their retirement benefits in 1985 or 86.
    Anyone entering the service after this date qualifies for pension
    only at age 65. Anyone whose service started prior to that date can
    still realize benefits immediately upon leaving the military.
    Something has been done to control pension cost, but to be fair to
    people already in the pipeline they can't change it retroactively.
    
                                Steve J.

    Re .39:
    
    I'm glad to be brought up to date about the current military retirement
    start date (age 65 vs whenever you leave the service).
    
    This seems more like common practice in the civilian world.
    
    I still thought Military personnel paid into a separate system, not SS.
    

    I joined the USN in August of 1959 and I payed into SS the entire time.
    
    The folks in my day did not pay into a MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND, if
    they had, we would have had to go on welfare.  
    
    The retirement at 20-30 years was predicated on the fact that you give
    your best years (earnings, and health) to the government, they give you
    something back.  Early moneys.  NOT a BIG AMOUNT.  I served 12 years,
    and when I got out I had not acheived a total salary and benefits above
    $10,000.00/year.  If I had stayed for 20, I would have had about ...
    $8,000.00/year.  $667/Month will pay a car payment or perhaps a house 
    payment.  
    
    You earn the money, I do not care if people are quadruple dipping they 
    earned it.  
    
    Dave

    RE:.42
    
    HERE HERE!!!
    
    I got out at eight, yearly salary at the time was $9,700., That was 
    with a family (wife and 1 child), before taxes (yes military pays 
    taxes too.) Those that remained for 20-30 most definately earned what 
    few benefits they get.
    
    If these folks earn benefits from two or more different areas, why is
    this considered "double dipping"? What I call "double dipping" is when
    our congress-folk draw a salary from the tax payer, then turn around
    and draw another salary from their State Tax Payer... Something like
    that would be double dipping....
    
    Just an opinion!
    
    Bob G.
    

    
    I have an uncle who went into the service, did his 20, then came out
    and became a postman. His 20 is over there, too, so now he's hitting
    the  government for 2 pensions plus SS....

    AND....... he earned both pensions and SS....!!!!!!!
    

    re .44
    
    Good for your Uncle... He paid into SS and earned the other retirement
    pensions.  
    
    Dave
    
    

    Several notes have mentioned that a person drawing Social Security
    benefits "earned" them by paying into Social Security, and .37 states
    that the author's daughter's benefits are "insurance" which was paid
    for by the parent.
    
    Both of these are false.  Social Security is not run on a financial
    basis by which payments made by persons support retirement or insurance
    for those persons or their beneficiaries.  The burden of current
    payments is borne by current contributors.  If contributions stopped,
    there would not be enough money in the Social Security plan to pay
    people expecting to receive benefits.
    
    People who have contributed to Social Security certainly have earned
    _part_ of the benefits they or their beneficiaries are receiving, but
    the rest of their benefits is taken from other innocent people.
    
    
    				-- edp

    A more fundamental problem is that Social Security has become something
    which it was not intended to be. It was insituted by FDR as a safety
    net to catch the destitute who were unable to provide for themselves in
    retirement, or who lacked the family support system to care for them.
    
    It has become a national retirement system. Expectations are that SS
    should provide an income on which one can live with reasonable comfort.
    Having set such expectations, the folks in Washington sit back and
    wonder why the U.S. savings rate is among the lowest in the world among
    developed countries. Why should anyone save for his retirement when
    he has assurance that Washington will provide. 
    
    

    A few weeks ago Daniel Patrick Moynihan appeared on either Meet the
    Press or David Brinkley. He was talking about Social Security and why
    it cannot be the untouchable program that it has always been. 
    
    In the past people paid into Social Security and collected at
    retirement. A person with a normal life expectancy collected far in 
    excess of the total dollars that were contributed. 
    
    If a person retires today, has been paying into Social Security for 
    his/her entire working career and has paid maximum taxes every year, for 
    the first time he/she will collect LESS THAN THE TOTAL DOLLARS THAT
    HE/SHE HAS CONTRIBUTED.  
    
    As someone said in an earlier note, those of us in our 40's and 50's 
    are paying in more and will be getting less. 
    
    Linda

    I saw a program on this that stated that a person uses up the entire
    amount of their SS contribution in three years after retiring. In this
    same program, a bunch of retired people were interviewed and all of
    them (of course - otherwise they wouldn't have been used in this piece)
    said that they could still be quite comfortable even if they didn't
    receive their monthly SS checks. And every one of them said that they
    would not voluntarily give it up because they earned it! Now, on the
    other hand, I know retired folks whose only income is from SS and they
    would indeed be destitute without it. I personally don't care about the
    so called 'double dipping' pensions because I believe that those are
    earned but I believe that a total income test should be done for SS
    benefits upon retirement. 
    
    FWIW.

    Specifically:
    
    In 1960, for each person collecting SS, there were 7 workers paying
    into SS.
    
    In 1990, for each person collecting SS, there were 3.3 people paying
    into SS.
    
    By 2010, for each person collecting SS there will be 2 people paying
    into SS.
    
    Yah, right.
    
    
    kbs
    
    

    re: .49 and .50
    
    The average recipient uses up his/her contributions in 3 years. DPM
    was talking about those who reach the SS taxable limit (this year in
    the mid $50K), a good-sized chunk of the Digital population. 
    
    Linda

    	So, I ponder- are the HCRA and other pre-tax deductions which
    effect SS earnings records and taxable income limits good or bad
    long term given the trend of SS payees vs. payors?
    
    Phil

    Re .53:
    
    All those pre-tax deductions have zero effect on your Social Security
    deductions.  If you have SAVE, or HCRA, or Dependent Child-care
    deductions, _and_ if your salary was below the SS/Medicare limits,
    examine your 1992 W-2 statement. You'll see that Line 10, "Wages and
    other compensation" is not the same as either "Social Security Wages"
    and "Medicare Wages".
    
    Both the "Social Security Wages" and "Medicare Wages" reflect your
    full compensation for the year, before _all_ deductions. (Unless of
    course you're above the salary limits, in which case they should
    reflect the ceilings, I'd expect.)
    
    In the under-the ceiling cases, the difference between these figures
    and Line 10 is the total amount contributed to the various pre-tax
    plans. 
    
    Thus: Your FULL salary (up to statutory limits) is used to determine
    Social Security/Medicare deductions, NOT your after-SAVE/HCRA/DCRA
    salary.
    
    So SAVE, HCRA, etc. have no effect on Social Security/Medicare
    contributions.
    
    Hope I've added a bit more light on this subject...
    
    j
    

    .48 hit the nail on the head. LBJ and his Great Society changed SS from
    a retirement program into a social reform program. As one of the other
    noters mentioned, back before this, population increase kept the number
    of people paying in greater than the number of people retiring. Once
    you double and quadruple the number of people eligible under social
    programs, we'd have to abolish all this talk about condoms and hope
    that the population would grow as rapidly. 
    
    (Just like the Post Office - once it was no longer used as a last resort 
    job for returning veterans, service and cost went all to hell.)
    
    Do you ever wonder that with SS being used by business as a reason for 
    some of them not to provide full retirement benefits to employees, (DEC
    for example computes our retirement by subtracting the amount paid by SS) 
    does this indicate the future of medical coverage after Bill and Hilly 
    get their health program (if indeed they do)? Is Big Brother taking
    care of us or not!

Re: .54-
    
    >All those pre-tax deductions have zero effect on your Social Security
    >deductions.  If you have SAVE, or HCRA, or Dependent Child-care
    
    	I disagree. The following is from Section 5 of the benefits book:
    
>Because your contributions to a Reimbursement Account reduce the amount of
>your salary on which Social Security taxes are withheld, you may receive a
>slightly lower Social Security benefit at retirement or during disability.
>The tax savings you gain through a Reimbursement Account, however, will
>generally be greater than any Social Security benefit reduction.

Phil







<-- Previous                    (Screen 5 of 60)                        Next -->


    All I know is that I have been working (and paying into SS) since
    June 16, 1961.  I am currently 49 years old; there darn well better
    be something there when I'm old enough to collect....I should live
    so long!!
    
    One of the reasons I mentioned being amazed that I was *expected*
    to file for SS if I remained out on LTD was because I have never
    considered SS to be the "catch all" it has become.
    
    For those of you who might be interested in getting some idea of what
    you will be collecting, you can contact the SS Admin; they will send
    you a form to fill out and you get an estimate back.  I did this last
    year because I was concerned about the fairly low amount being shown
    on the form DEC sends out each year.  When I called the SS 800#, the
    woman explained the amount being shown on DEC's form was based on the
    amount I paid in since I've been a Digital employee; the info I got
    back was based on my entire employment history.....made quite a 
    difference.
    
    As I mentioned before, I just *hope* there is money in the fund to
    sustain me when I need it because circumstances have made it difficult
    for me to provide myself with much of a "cushion".
    
    Karen
    

    
    Re: .57
    
    > I am currently 49 years old; there darn well better be something
    > there when I'm old enough to collect.
    
    Well, Karen, don't hold your breath.  Many people, as you were,
    are surprised at the long list of things that SS now covers.  The part
    of it that pays retirement benefits is actually quite well funded,
    but with the other parts of it growing at the rate it is, many people,
    myself included, are not counting on it.
    
    There is a common misconception that SS is a retirement fund that
    we each pay into.  Wrong.  If you take the time to look at it, you
    realize that it is a tax used to fund a program.  That program can
    be eliminated just like any other.
    
    Steve
    

    If you really want your eyes opened about what the future holds for the
    baby boomers (approx 76 million people) when they approach retirement,
    read a new book called Age Wave (can't remember author's name).  You
    will be surprised by  some of the demographic data of the US age
    groups, such as 70% of the wealth in America is held by people over 65.
    The image of the poor senior citizen is a false one.  They have more
    disposable income than any other group, and yet they are given all
    these senior discounts.  They have gotten the name "greedy geezers"
    because they demand and use up so many resources, especially in health
    care.  The author predicts an age war with the younger populations
    saying no to the older ones.  In health care he says already hospitals
    are prioritizing who gets health resources based on age, i.e. the young
    first, the old last.
    
    But the real news is that when the baby boomers hit retirement they
    will expect the same or more, and because they did not have as many
    children as their parents there will be a greatly reduced workforce
    upon which they can depend for Social Security funds.
    
    There is a lot more in the book that was surprising. My plan is to take
    care of myself first through my own savings plan and not count on the
    government plan.  I don't think it will be there or if so, greatly
    reduced.

    I'm never going to retire.  I understand that my payments into SS are
    used NOW.  There is no "savings" for me to retire on.  It's just a tax I 
    pay to support others today.  And, what little I do save for retirement
    purposes will get whittled away by politicians.  So, I'm trying to make
    investments in things that the government can't tax me for (like kids,
    copyrights, contacts and skills).
    
    Steve

    
    re .59
    
    I agree that there are numerous people in the older generation who do
    not need SS but take it anyway, they see it as "earned" by their years
    of work. However, I believe that this is a small portion of the older
    folks and this is far outweighed by those who depend on SS for
    additional income.
    
    I have seen figures on this (can look around for the sources if need
    be) but would like to use my own grandmother as an example. My
    grandfather died when my dad was 9, making it the year 1943. Gram
    hadn't worked since having children, but went to work to support dad &
    my aunt. She worked at a number of places until she was at least 70
    years of age. What did she get? All 3 of the comapnies are out of
    business and the pension funds are greatly diminshed or disappeared
    all togehter.
    
    Now, Gram saved her miney and lived simply. Up until a couple of years
    ago she had (approximately from what I can tell) $60,000 saved for her
    living out her years. Well, an ailment came up, forced her to move into
    a managed care facility, and now all her money is gone (in 2 years!) and 
    she must depend on SS, Mecicare and or Medicaid for her support....
    
    John

    
    Re: .59
    
    70% of the wealth may well be held by those over 65 but the important
    question is what percent of that is held by what percent of the group.
    If 90% of that 70% is held by 5% of the group then I'd hesitate to
    call them well off.
    
    There are, however, frequent occurences of the greedy geezer you
    describe.  I recall seeing on PBS a special devoted to this topic
    interviewing residents in a rest home.  I was astonished by the
    number in the crowd who said that they wanted theirs and didn't
    care who had to suffer for it.  There were only a few who were
    willing to listen to the problem.
    
    Steve
    

    Remember, the majority of these old people receiving SS benefits 
    earned their retirement; they are now too old to work; don't want to 
    be a burden on anyone; and saved their money because it was considered
    necessary to save for the future. Just because our modern society
    considers these values to be poo-poo, (hard work, saving for
    the future, self reliance), we are being told that the YOUNG are entitled 
    to this money first. Don't believe it, unless you want to support more 
    and more deadbeats. When you knock these older people, look at what it
    is you are in fact knocking. They lived through the Great Depression,
    they fought two world wars and a Police Action. They're the labor force 
    that got us where we are today. They've earned the protection for
    themselves and their families.
    
    You can bet too that they aren't getting rich off their medical
    benefits. The older people I know aren't interested in living in a
    vegetative state - but the medical profession is. Look at how many
    doctors, hospitals, hospital administrators, etc. there are since the
    Government took over health care via Medicaid and Medicare. Why do you
    think the AMA is so bubbly happy over Hillary's national health plan.
    Can you guess why they are promoting it? Do you really think they (AMA)
    givea good damn about the health of people? 
    
    Quit bashing older people - you might one day be one too. 

    Steve asks a good question.  With normal distribution, 20% of those
    over 65 will hold 80% of their wealth.
    
    							Ann B.

    RE: .63 Good note.  These younger folks are being silly and I'm sure
    that when they get of retirement age they will expect to receive the
    benefits as well regardless of how well off they are in their
    retirement.  The govt set up the mandatory retirement plan so as to
    take care of the people who weren't foresighted enough to plan for
    their own golden years, so everyone is entitled to receive who put in
    to the fund.  I, for one, would love to opt out of the program and set
    up a retirement plan of my own.
    
    
    Mike

    

Re: .63

    > Remember, the majority of these old people receiving SS benefits 
    > earned their retirement; they are now too old to work; don't want to 
    > be a burden on anyone; and saved their money because it was considered
    > necessary to save for the future. 

    Did they?  Up to now all those who currently retired have already or
    will get back more than they paid into it.  I think we have just
    reached the point where those who retire after now will get in
    benefits less than they paid into the system. 
     
    Anyway the real issue is that the system is rapidly approaching
    collapse.  It *must* be reformed.
    
    > we are being told that the YOUNG are entitled to this money first. 
         
    You mean the YOUNG have the cheek to complain that the current FICA
    tax burden, which some in Congress want to *increase again*, is
    breaking them?   How shameful of them.
    
    > You can bet too that they aren't getting rich off their medical
    > benefits. The older people I know aren't interested in living in a
    > vegetative state - but the medical profession is. 

    My 65 year old mother had a knee replaced the last week in April, on
    May 29 was diagnosed with cervical cancer, and has had 3 major
    operations since then related to the cancer.  Other than their house,
    my parents have a few thousand they've saved.  I think I understand
    what retirees are faced with.

    > Quit bashing older people - you might one day be one too. 

    No one is indiscriminately bashing older people.  The reality is
    that the system is already close to collapse and there are more
    than a few current recipients who want their money no what the cost.

    Re: .65

    > The govt set up the mandatory retirement plan so as to take care
    > of the people who weren't foresighted enough to plan for their own
    > golden years ...

    Check your facts.  It is not a "mandatory retirement plan".  FICA
    is a *TAX* which is used, among other things, to fund retirement
    benefits.  It is not a retirement plan.

    > so everyone is entitled to receive who put in to the fund.  

    Wrong again.  There are eligibility tests applied at the time
    you apply.  Just because you paid in is no guarantee that you will
    be eligible to collect.  This is what makes it different from a
    retirement plan and one of the many objections to the system.

    
    Steve

    

    re .66
    
    At least twice in your entry you said that the SS system was on the
    verge of collapse.  Where did you get this bit of information? 
    Everything I've seen shows that the SS 'retirement' trust fund is in
    good shape.  There is trouble with the SS 'medicare' funding but as far
    as I know the 'retirement' trust fund is fine.
    
    You might think its ready to fall apart and there are many people who
    would like to see things change that are willing to spread the myth of
    collapse.  They seem to believe that change is so necessary that
    creating a gulf between senior and younger Americans is worth the
    price.
    
    To me the real issue to coming to grips with the fact that many
    families and their doctors are unwilling to reject exotic and super
    expensive medical procedures for senior citizens who will die within
    days/weeks/months of these extraordinary procedures.
    
    If you can prove that the SS retirement system is about to crumble then
    I'd appreciate you showing the proof so I can re-examine my thinking.
    
    Regards,
    
    Marv
    

    There is no retirement "trust" fund.  Monies collected under Social
    Security go into the General Fund.  The General Fund pays SS benefits. 
    So what exists is a plan whereby people receive more money that they
    paid in and an ever deceasing base of people who have top fund the
    plan.  
    
    Pierce

    re .68
    
    U R Wrong.
    
    Marv
    

    
    Re: .69
    
    No, he isn't wrong.
    
    The funds going into SS are deposited in a general fund from where
    they are allocated into different piles by policy not by law.  The
    only exception to that is the recent separating out of the tax for
    medicare benefits.  When they talk about the trust fund being adequate
    all that means is that *for the present* everything is OK, but policy
    could change all that tomorrow.
    
    All the demographic data they currently have shows that about the
    year 2020 or perhaps before there will be a serious and rapid shift
    away from solvency because there simply won't be enough young, working,
    people to pay the benefits for those who are retired.  It doesn't take
    a rocket scientist to figure this out, but those deep in denial don't
    want to hear it.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    
    >Retirement trust fund is in good shape...
    
      Exactly!  The current trust fund has more than enough
    	money to pay its projected obligations.
    
      The problem is tha this "trust fund"  isn't a separate room
    in Fort Knox...  This "Trust fund"   is entirely invested
    in debt obligations to a virtually Bankrupt Federal Government...
    
      The real question that arises is whether or not the federal
    government can make good on the notes as fast as the cash
    is needed while keeping up with its other obligations...
    
    
    						-al

    As I understood it the federal goverment is putting I.O.U.'s in the
    social security fund. Basically we are borrowing against our future.
    
    This is where the flaw is.  
    
    - Mike

    re: .71,.72
    
    That is also my understanding - a significant portion of the US
    government national debt is in the form of treasury obligations
    owned by the SS trust fund ('backed by the full faith and credit
    of the United States' blah blah blah). So it's all book-keeping;
    FICA taxes go to the SS fund, which buys long term T-bills which 
    finance US government debt. On paper the SS fund has assets and
    the US has debt, in reality the money goes into the general fund...
    
    Of course it will be interesting times when the bill comes due.
    
    Dave

    
    Re .71-.73
    
    Each of those replies help make my point about policy.  Since it is all
    in the way the government mismanages its money, they can "decide" at
    some time in the future that they are just not going to pay their bills. 
    If the SS system is among those creditors, then those of us who are
    expecting it to be there will be out of luck.
    
    Steve

    In economic terms, this discussion is all balderdash.
    
    Whether there is or is not a separate SSA trust fund is irrelevant.  SS
    payments are made by the government.  The government prints the money. 
    If they need to pay, they pay.  They can print all the money they want. 
    They cannot go bankrupt because they can print the money they need. 
    The mechanism for printing this is a) they incur debt, and b) the
    Federal Reserve purchases it.  This is called "monetizing the debt". 
    It is where your money and my money comes from.  It is how the Fed
    controls the money supply, which indirectly controls interest rates and
    inflation rates.
    
    If the government prints money at a faster pace than the economy grows,
    then there's inflation.  If the government stops printing money, then
    there is disinflation and the economy shrinks (depression).  The trick
    is for the government to print just the right amount of money.
    
    For illustration, witness Russia, whose "we hate the President"
    legislature has been printing rubles at a prodigious rate, hence an
    inflation rate that has recently _shrunk_ to 18%/month.  And on the
    other side, witness Germany, whose version of the Fed, the Bundesbank,
    revolted against the legislature's printing of money (trading nearly
    worthless Ostmarks for Deutschmarks) by tightening the money supply. 
    That action has contributed mightily to world recession, the failure of 
    the European monetary system, and (yes, it's relevant to Digital) the
    dramatic drop-off in revenues from Digital's German subsidiaries.
    
    But it's easier to imagine pyggy banks going empty.  Wrong, but easy.

    
    Re: .75
    
    On the level you discuss it you are right, but the point of the
    discussion was from the standpoint of reforming the system to
    help manage out of control costs.  It would be preferable not
    to have the government simply printing money to keep up with
    cost if there is a less inflationary way to do it.
    
    Steve