Phoney social security scare
Social security is not in trouble. It bears repeating. Social. security. is. NOT. in. trouble. Bush's personal investment account plan would cost us hundreds of billions more and would not solve any problem. Why? Because social security is NOT... okay, I'll not repeat that again. But other than the fact that even at current levels social security can hold until 2042, here's why it's not in trouble...
The level of our social security tax is directly proportional to how many years benefits can be paid for each person. The tax has gone up several times since social security's inception as average lifespans have steadily risen. As average lifespans continue to rise, either A) the tax must be increased to keep pace, B) the retirement age must be increased to keep pace, or C) benefits must be cut. That's not a system in crisis. That's basic math. Social security was never intended to pay everyone 15 to 20 plus years of income. If as a society we want to pay that many years of benefits, it's going to cost us more. Surprise, surprise. I think we pay enough already. The health of the average person in their mid 60s is far better than it was twenty or forty years ago, so the de facto retirement age set by when you're eligible to collect social security should continue to increase. That's it. Problem solved. If you save enough money yourself to retire sooner, hurray for you, but the government will not pay until the ever increasing age is reached. It's that simple.
If we could be reasonably sure that personal investment accounts or any other major change to social security would provide better total benefits at the same old tax rate and total cost, then sure, let's do it. We're not seeing that evidence though. So for now, let's learn some basic math. Longer lifespans means that to keep paying the same yearly benefits at the same social security tax rate, the retirement age MUST continue to go up. You don't have to be a math major, an economist, or a politician to figure it out. The politicians are unnecessarily complicating the issue.
p.s. If you're already receiving social security, stay out of the debate, okay? It doesn't concern you. Your benefits aren't going to change. Thanks.
The level of our social security tax is directly proportional to how many years benefits can be paid for each person. The tax has gone up several times since social security's inception as average lifespans have steadily risen. As average lifespans continue to rise, either A) the tax must be increased to keep pace, B) the retirement age must be increased to keep pace, or C) benefits must be cut. That's not a system in crisis. That's basic math. Social security was never intended to pay everyone 15 to 20 plus years of income. If as a society we want to pay that many years of benefits, it's going to cost us more. Surprise, surprise. I think we pay enough already. The health of the average person in their mid 60s is far better than it was twenty or forty years ago, so the de facto retirement age set by when you're eligible to collect social security should continue to increase. That's it. Problem solved. If you save enough money yourself to retire sooner, hurray for you, but the government will not pay until the ever increasing age is reached. It's that simple.
If we could be reasonably sure that personal investment accounts or any other major change to social security would provide better total benefits at the same old tax rate and total cost, then sure, let's do it. We're not seeing that evidence though. So for now, let's learn some basic math. Longer lifespans means that to keep paying the same yearly benefits at the same social security tax rate, the retirement age MUST continue to go up. You don't have to be a math major, an economist, or a politician to figure it out. The politicians are unnecessarily complicating the issue.
p.s. If you're already receiving social security, stay out of the debate, okay? It doesn't concern you. Your benefits aren't going to change. Thanks.
posted by Patrick at
2:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home