A million bucks just ain't what it used to be

This is in response to Mr. Gregg's letter printed Dec. 12. His suggested "cap" of $1 million "net worth" to receive Social Security benefits does not take into consideration a lot of reality.

Consider, included in "net worth" is your home. Lets say $300,000 is debt free. Well it generates 0 income. Also consider a "secure investment," like a bank account. At current interest rates a million dollars would yield approximately $408 per year (let alone on $700,000 excluding your house. Not quite enough to live on.

Oh yeah, you could/would have that kind of money invested in stocks ad bonds. Well, that's not exactly a "safe and secure" return to live on as is Social Security. So, you put aside part of your portfolio, say $ 100,000 for security, so you wouldn't have to sell investments in a down market. Now you have $600,000 to generate income from. Can it be done? Sure, but it's not like your living high on the hog.

With a 5 percent annual return, that $600,000 would yield $30,000 before taxes and Medicare.

Play with the numbers, they still come up short of what you were illustrating.

I'd agree with "means testing" for Social Security benefits (like they do for Medicare). But, the minimum amount anyone should get back be based on how much they've "put in." I think a better way to help Social Security stay solvent would be to remove the salary cap on paycheck withdrawals. The million dollar annual incomes would be paying in to SS on the full million dollars.

A million dollars just ain't what it used to be.

Ron Hawley

Huntley