Letter: Personal account better deal for retirement

Friday, May 19, 2000 | 9:46 a.m.

In response to the May 11 letter from Dan Olivier in the Sun: Olivier attacks the "Republican" proposal, supported by Democrats Patrick Moynihan and Bob Kerrey, on saving Social Security. As I near 40, I firmly believe Social Security is a pipe dream for me. The proposal, endorsed in similar formats by Republicans and Democrats, shifts part of my Social Security tax to a personal investment account.

Olivier assumes "current benefits will have to be discontinued or seriously cut back" under the proposal. I would hope so. After 15-20 years of investment into personal investment accounts, less reliance on the public dole will be necessary. Many friends and I have always assumed we will need to be self-sufficient in our retirement.

He continues that "the compromise will probably be to discontinue the present program altogether ..." What an outrageous assumption. I wish I could forecast politics 15-20 years in the future.

Finally, he assumes "a mere subsistence benefit paid out of the general treasury to only the poorest of seniors." When Social Security was devised in 1933, the Old Age and Supplemental and Disability Income was destined for people who lived eight years beyond their life expectancy. It was not a crutch for all people.

By moving much of our hard-earned dollars to a personal account -- untouchable by the government, most Americans will have the funds available for retirement, without reliance on government handouts.

KYLE L. TINGLE