Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510041559400.11761 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510041610410.9139 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510041559400.11761 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Social Security [and teacher salaries]
Status: O

This is a vanishingly small amount of money we're talking about -- pennies
per taxpayer, if that.
 Contrast with Iraq which costs each of us hundreds of dollars. (yes, you)

That said, I don't exactly disagree that congress should do away with
their elitist retirement plan, mainly on principle.  But it's equivalent
to a call for a salary cut for congress members.  I have no real opinion
on that.

More importantly, this should serve to point out how outrageous it is that
teachers are paid so little.  The positive effect on society from paying
teachers more would be huge:  higher salaries => more prestige => attracts
the top people & motivates them to work harder at what they do, namely
teach and inspire the next generation and get them excited about their
respective fields of study, etc

Danny

ps, I deleted the obnoxious "forward this to everyone you know" rhetoric
in the quoted copy below...

--- \/   FROM Kevin Lochner AT 05.10.04 16:01 (Today)   \/ ---

>
> just a little something to provoke govt irritation . . .
>
> -----
>
>   ----------------------------------
>
>   SOCIAL SECURITY:
>
>   Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
>
>   Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
> course, they do not collect from it.
>
>   You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of
> their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have a special
> plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their "own"
> benefit plan.
>
>   In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change
> it. After all, it is a great plan.
>
>   For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
>   When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
>
>   Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living
> adjustments..
>
>   For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may
> expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred
> Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last
> years of their lives.
>
>   This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two
> Dignitaries.
>
>
>   Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
> during the rest of their lives.
>
>   Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
>
>   This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I
> pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan
> come directly from the General Funds;
>
>   "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
>
>   From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid)
> into, - every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our
> employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after
> retirement.
>   Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000
> monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal "Senator" Bill
> Bradley's benefits!
>
>
>
>
>   Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
>
>   That change would be to:
>
>
>   Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and
> Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
>
>
>   then sit back.....
>
>
>   and see how fast they would fix it!
>
>   - David A. McNally -

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"

6 weeks in the lab will save you a day in the library.