AARP, how about writing about other ideas about helping Social Security?

The Mail
AARP The Magazine
601 E. St., N.W.
Wash., D.C. 20049

Dear Editors, AARP The Magazine,

Greetings! I hope that you and the loved ones are in good health. Good health is such a wonderful blessing from the good Lord, our Creator Lord! How is your spirit on this glorious day that the Lord has made? Please remember that we humans are more than flesh and blood. I am writing to you on this glorious day about the article in the Sept./Oct. issue entitled "Time To Protect Social Security". As stated in the article there are numerous ways to change Social Security (and I'm sure there are more than 50 ways to do it), and in the article you mentioned AARP's calculated projected increased revenues if the maximum amount of income that is taxed (at the 6.2% rate for the employee, and 6.2% rate for the employer) was to increase from the present $106,800 to $190,000 and also if the limit on income was totally eliminated (no matter how much a person made, they would still have to pay a 6.2% Social Security tax, and the employer would have to pay a 6.2% Social Security tax on it - for example, if someone made $100 million one year, then they would have to pay a $6.2 million Social Security tax, and their employer would have to pay $6.2 million Social Security tax on it). Please let us know what AARP projects the increase in revenues for raising the maximum amount of income level to various in-between levels such as $350,000, $670,000, $1,500,000, $3,500,000, $8,500,000, and, say, $10,500,000.

How about checking out other ideas in changing the Social Security System? How about AARP checking out the projected savings by eliminating the very rich from receiving any Social Security (even though they may have paid into it for many, many years). For instance, what if people that had averaged more than $3.5 million net income over the last seven years of employment prior to retirement would no longer receive any Social Security, and those that averaged $2.5 - $3.5 million would receive only 1/3 of what they would have, and those that averaged $1.5 - $2.5 million would receive only 2/3 of what they would have before this change? Also, another change that could be implemented to save money would be to change the number of quarters required, or years required, of paying into Social Security before one could receive full benefits. The current requirement of paying into Social Security is rarely discussed (although the age of retirement is discussed quite often, and has been changed by law in the past), and I believe that if more people were aware of the current requirement, then more people would ask that the requirement be increased (I'm not advocating that the requirement should be 45, or 46, years, but why shouldn't it be something like 35 or 35.5 years [with those paying into the system for less than 22.5 years getting only a small fraction of what they'd get today under the current system, and those paying from 22.5 - 35 years getting a fraction, let's say 75 percent, of what they'd get today]). AARP should do another article explaining what the current requirement is, and what savings AARP projects if the requirement for paying into the system was increased (not to belabor a point, but the age for retiring seems to get a lot of media coverage - not to mention that it has actually changed over the years), and how the retirement age has changed by law over the years!

Also, another idea that doesn't get discussed is enacting a net asset tax on the very rich, and dedicating the money to the Social Security System. It could be a graduated tax with a personal and spouse exemption starting at $50.65 million each, and dependent (those under 21 years old that are living at home) exemption of $31 million each (the net asset tax could be a temporary tax, let's say it would be in effect for only 9 years, and each year the exemptions could automatically increase by a third - the personal/spouse exemption would go from $50.65 million to $67.5333 million, and the dependent exemption would go from $31 million to $41.333 million from the first to the second year of the tax, and increase each year, thereafter, by a third). Another idea that I haven't heard discussed is selling off government assets and using all, or part, of the income to help Social Security. There are over 740 million acres of land owned by the government in the United States (I don't advocate selling off all the land and/or assets, or selling land for only $10,000 an acre, but 10 million acres sold at $10,000 raises $100 billion). In New Jersey, where I live, about 20% of the state is owned by the government, and New Jersey is the densest state in the United States, I believe!

Please write more articles about changing Social Security that includes more information about the ideas discussed in this letter, and ideas that others might have suggested to AARP. Also, please tell us more about how savings or projected revenue increases were figured out by AARP. Also, please let us know how other sources (Congressional Budget Office, and others) project savings and/or revenue increases.

Thank you very much! Hope that you and the loved ones have a joyous and peaceful day. May the good Lord, our Creator Lord, bless you and the loved ones immensely!

Sincerely,




Ken Miller
Main St. Rm. 103
still one of the working poor - if only in spirit!

We love, because he first loved us. 1john4:19

Jesus is Lord!

P.S. I do advocate that government land and assets be sold/transferred (in addition to probably other monetary payments) to Native Americans, and ancestors of slaves, for restitution/reparation for failure of the United States to follow through on promises, commitments and/or treaties!

All glory, honor, praise, and thanks be to our Creator Lord - maker of heaven and earth!!!!