Friday, September 16, 2011
Feeling Secure About Social Security
The government implemented program Social Security has been getting a lot of hate lately by the Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry. He called it a "Ponzi Scheme" and vowed that our generation would never see a penny from the program. He bashed it as a monstrous lie and in turn has suffered lasting damage because of his misinformed comment. Is Social Security a type of "Ponzi scheme" that dupes the innocent? No. A Ponzi scheme only exists because it attracts new investors so as to pay off old ones. Social Security taxes workers but builds up the funds from all workers so as to pay off retired ones; people get their money to some extent. The old and retired, (ex. grandmas aged 100) still get social security benefits. However, the main problem with Social Security is that it has trouble meeting needs when the economy is down; it just simply can't raise enough funds and that's how Perry came to the conclusion that our generation would never get a penny. What can the government do? Raise taxes? (Republicans would cringe). However, Social Security does face problems just as any government program does. What about the rich who overall just don't need the benefits as much as others do but still get a big bite of the pie? The average lifespan is rising, meaning more money needed for those who live off social security longer than they contributed to it. The government really needs to act on its many government problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That's an excellent point you made about the rich who "don't need the benefits as much as others do but still get a big bite of the pie". I feel that that extra money ought to rather be directed towards the poor who cannot afford all their medical bills in their later years - the only problem with this is that we don't live in a perfect, selfless world, and the aging affluent would feel entitled to every dollar they contributed to Social Security.
The average lifespan is indeed rising, but unless if someone lives to 100, they wouldn't be living off Social Security longer than they had contributed to it. What I feel is the current problem (and I think I discussed this in one of my earlier comments), is the fact that all the baby boomers are moving out of the workforce into the living-off-of-Social-Security stage, and with fewer jobs, there are less people and less paychecks pumping money into the system. Certainly Social Security isn't a "Ponzi scheme", but the government does need to reevaluate Social Security and reform it appropriately.
I agree with both of you, especially what you said Jeremy about the world not being a perfect place where people act not out of self-interest but for the interest of others. It makes sense ideally to have the wealthy, who will be able to pay for medical bills, receive fewer benefits than someone who is unable to afford the extensive medical costs. But as you both pointed out, this solution appears more ideal than pragmatic. However, I think the main point we need to take out of this inequity is that somewhere, we will all have to compromise if we want social security to still be around and accessible to us when we are older. While people may be hesitant and reluctant to give up some of their benefits to support those who have no other way to pay for medical bills, it may be the best solution.
I think I just like that the government is doing something about the social security issue. Including their recent-ish healthcare reform, I think that the elderly won't need as much social security with cheaper prices for health care overall.
I agree with all of you guys. To address the rich getting benefits from Social Security, I read that Mitt Romney's solution would be to slow the benefits for them. The other part of his solution is that he'd gradually raise the retirement age. I think this may be problematic for the workers who have physically demanding jobs because they might not be able to keep performing strenuous work through their 60s.
Post a Comment