Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by the 2016 Spalding County SPLOST via the Flint River Regional Library System.
About Griffin daily news. (Griffin, Ga.) 1924-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 7, 1977)
Social Security going broke? Americans may have to work beyond age 65 By EDMOND Le BRETON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Ameri cans at some future time may have to work beyond age 65 to qualify for full Social Security benefits, if some serious stu dents of the system have their way. The mere mention of this pos siblity recently provoked an up roar, even though there is no pending legislation and no pro posal by President Carter’s ad ministration for such a change. Congress is now working on a more pressing problem: how to keep the system’s reserves from running out in about five years. There is no real prospect that Congress will permit such an outcome, which would mean cutting off or reducing benefits. Actual drafting of legislation to refinance Social Security is scheduled to begin in a House subcommittee Sept. 12. However, while that subcom mittee and the corresponding Senate panel were conducting hearings on Carter’s proposals to provide Social Security funds, they received testimony on a wide variety of future threats and present inconsist encies in the huge system that collects taxes from more than nine out of ten U.S. workers and their employers and pays benefits to 33.3 million persons. A major concern is the aging trend of the population. By ear ly in the next century there may be one retired person to every two active workers carrying the tax burden of the system — instead of the present ratio of one retired person to every three workers. Other problems Congress was told it will have to face sooner or later included: —Eliminating discrimination against women. —The perennial demand that the retired not have their bene fits reduced because of money earned from a job. —The advisability of drawing a clearer line between needs that should be met by Social Security and by welfare sys tems, and financing each ac cordingly. —Deciding how much of a worker’s income should be re placed by Social Security and how much should be left to company and individual pen sion plans, and how government could encourage these. —The possiblity of merging Long John Silver’s FISH & MORE vt \ 7 ’ z wtx €x -4ux<., r 7 2HR»»y■■ j A Complete Meal Priced Like A Snack At $1.59, Fish & More is always a bargain. But for a very limited time, you can get even more of a deal when you use this coupon. You get two fish fillets, two hushpuppies, fryes and slaw -a complete meal for the price of a snack. ! sicifF : i FISH & MORE DINNER : I This coupon entitles the bearer to 50c off the regular $1.59 price of a Fish & More Dinner. Offer good only at: ■ I 105 North Expressway I Bring a big appetite. But don’t bring a lot of money. I Offer limited: One coupon per person, per visit. | ■ c Long < Jdhn§ilver§ l I Offer expiree September 29, 1977 SEAFOOD SHOPPES L—— J Social Security with other pub lic retirement programs, such as the Civil Service system for government workers. Little public attention had been given to the possibilty of raising the standard retirement age until Commerce Secretary Juanita M. Kreps mentioned it, as a personal concern, in an in terview. Chairman Claude Pepper, D- Fla., of the House Committee on Aging, fired off a letter saying he was shocked and urging Mrs. Kreps to “withdraw your proposal.” She replied she had made no proposal, the administration was considering none and so there was nothing to withdraw. But, she added, she thinks the possibility may have to be examined in the future. Some nongovernmental wit nesses did make such proposals to the committees. A typical one was to add one year to the standard retirement age in 1985 and two more years at five-year intervals, bringing the age to 68. Persons still would be able to retire at 65, but with a reduced benefit, just as they now may retire at 62, but with a 20 per cent reduction. A long-standing complaint about the treatment of women under Social Security stems from its provisions affecting a dependent spouse — usually the wife — who nevertheless has worked and paid the payroll tax. When she retires, she receiv es either the benefit earned by her contributions or half the amount of her husband’s bene fit, whichever is greater, but not both. Accordingly, in most cases, she is no better off than if she had never worked and never paid the payroll tax, since a nonworking wife is entitled to half the amount of a husband’s benefit when they both retire. This and other provisions re lating to women reflect 1930’s views that a standard family consisted of a working husband and a nonworking wife caring for children. But the committees heard testimony that this decription now fits only 16 per cent of American families, that recent statistics show 54 per cent of all working-age women are in the labor force, including 44 per cent of married women and 29 per cent of women with children under six. Supreme Court decisions dur ing the past year force some change. The law provided that a wife was automatically a de pendent, but a husband was not entitled to corresponding bene fits based on a working wife’s earnings unless it were proved he actually depended on her eco nomically. The court held this distinction unconstitutional. The decision was estimated to affect 520,000 men at a cost to Social Security of $515 million. Among other things, it requires payment of dependent or widower benefits to some men who had actually been the main support of the family, if their employment —for example, by the federal government — were outside Social Security cov erage. In response, the adminis tration has proposed estab lishing a dependency test appli cable to both husbands and wives. The dependent would be the member of the couple who had less than half its total in come in the three years prior to retirement, disability or death. In most cases, this would be the wife. Other provisions cited as un fair to women include the re quirement that a divorced woman receives benefits on her former husband’s earnings only if the marriage lasted at least 20 years; that a nonworking wife gets no benefits until her husband retires, even if he con tinues working after 65 and even if she is older than he; that a widow can draw no benefits during the years after her children are grown and before she reaches 60. Some have suggested that a couple’s income be split evenly, without regard to the proportion each earned, and that separate Social Security accounts be set up for each; that Social Security somehow recognize the economic value of a housewife’s services; that women be given a preference in computing the average wage base for benefits because their working careers are predictably interrupted by child-bearing and rearing. Under present law, persons who retire under Social Security lose benefits if they earn more than a specified amount, although they may have any amount of investment or other unearned income without un dergoing such a reduction. This provision is perennially under attack in Congress. More than 200 members have spon sored legislation to liberalize or eliminate the so-called “retire ment test.” But its defenders say the pro vision is consistent with Social Security’s purpose: to insure against inability to work, and that one who does work should expect reduced or eliminated benefits. They also say that eliminat ing the retirement test would cost Social Security $6 billion to $7 billion annually and that this money would be better spent improving benefits to those needing them most. The amount of permissible earnings is adjusted annually. This year it is $3,000 and the 1978 figure is estimated at $3,240. Above the official level, each $2 of earnings means a $1 reduction in the monthly bene fit. Besides outright elimination of the retirement test, there are proposals to increase the ex empt amount of earnings, re duce the exemption age and lib eralize the benefit reduction ra tio. The scale of benefits is HEAR YE! HEAR YE! THERE’S A SENSATIONAL SALE AT FAMILY DOLLAR IHSmRf all merchandise moved to select FAMILY DOLLAR STORES HBir SAVE 33% TO 70% ' JO OFF ROBERT HALL PRICES. EVERYTHING MUST BE SOLD! | BmW _ LADIES TOPS MENS DRESS & fc IB PRIG. 54.99-55.99 .... $ 2" SPORT SHIRTS H ORIG. 56.99-58.99.... ?3* ORIG. 55.99-58.99 ... *3” ~ n.b.To ORIG. 59.99-513.99 .. .M” i, fl ft I ADIF<i 1 orig. $i0.99-$14.99 .. . $ 6” MENS DRESS PANTS Hfl LADIES GAUCHOS okZs.w':? ’[ '/K fl ■/Ilf MENS JEANS LADIES SKIRTS ORIG. 57.99-59.99 ... , $ 5” T IjSiFfs ORIG. 59.95-511.99 ... . $ 4” ORIG. $10.96-514.99 .. $ 7" & .off b Hl LADIES PANT SUITS MENS SPORT COATS fIH ORIG. $12.99-$15.99 .. . $ 6" ORIG. $24.99-$39.99 , $ 7” | ■XL B ORIG. 518.99-524.99 .. $ 7” MM» LADIES JEANS orig. 57.99-5i2.99 .. S S W . ' kJ i ORIG. 5H.96-5H99.... *7” SH|RTS J 'll LV, ORIG - 53.99-55.99 ... . $ 2” fe/i Alfc PLUS MANY MORE ITEMS AT BIG SAVINGS! j; BM Bwef THIS MERCHANDISE AVAILABLE LOCALLY f at this family dollar location only < [ 03“’ FAMHYIOLIAR _— z ® ALL MERCHANDISE FIRST QUALITY 514 West Tq y |or St - Griffin weighted in favor of lower-paid workers. Under present law, a worker who received the min imum wage qualifies on retire ment for a benefit estimated to equal about 65 per cent replace ment of his earnings. A worker earning the maximum taxable amount has only about 33 per cent replaced and one earning more than that an even lower proportion. The minimum Social Security benefit for a 65-year-old retiree this year is $114.30 a month, while the maximum is $437.10. A worker can qualify for the minimum by earning as little as SSO a calendar quarter for 614 years. One result is that by a little moonlighting in private em ployment, a well-paid govern ment employe with Civil Ser vice retirement rights can qualify for a second retirement payment from Social Security. Although the system at its in ception was designed to care only for workers, it has ex panded to provide benefits for wives, surviving spouses, de ceased workers’ children through college age, dependent Page 7 parents and dependent grand children. Some of those who emphasize what they call the welfare as pects of the system say this would justify some use of gen eral funds. Regular federal wel fare programs are so funded. One drastic suggestion was to restructure the system into two layers: a basic subsistence pay ment paid at least in part from general funds and a supple mentary payment tied directly to working life contributions, plans. About 9 million workers, less than 10 per cent of the total, are still not covered by Social Security. Federal government employes are the largest single uncovered group. Civil Service and other gov ernmental retirement systems operate on different principles, with different contribution scales and benefit comput ations, from those of Social Se curity. There have been proposals for merging the various govern ment-operated retirement plans into Social Security to create one compatible, better-financed system. Griffin Daily News Wednesday, September 7,1977 11 il i&iii' i 1 fI ; I f M I K* wl I t Tw y Za jHa- -if"-. By J v To sign treaty WASHINGTON—President Carter, right, met Tuesday with Omar Torrijos, Panama’s head of government, at the White House. It was their first meeting prior to the ceremonial signing of the Panama Canal treaty. (AP)
