How to save Social Security
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
June 21, 2011 2:07am CST
There is a lot of talk about Social Security how to save it. My question is how would you save the program?
President Bush suggested that going forward people below a certain age could choose between the present program or employer and employee putting the same amount of money into a private plan that would follow the employee and the employee would own it and it would be like an IRA or private pension plan.
Various commissions have suggested a way that would involve increasing the tax paid by employer and employee along with increasing the retirement age.
Some have talked about limiting the Cost of Living adjustment.
Others have suggested that you tax all income and pay out based on need.
Finally some say the government should give back the money and get out of the retirement payments all together.
What do you think should be done to save SS?
1 person likes this
1 response
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Jun 11
I think a combination of things need to be done but I'm definitely not in favor of privatization. I realize most of you here will disagree with me but I think Social Security needs to remain as a government program. "SECURITY" is the key word here. No, I don't think the "government can take care of me better than I can take care of myself", but that safety net needs to be continued, at least for anyone who is already in the workforce or better yet, anyone who has already been born.
My point is, most of us don't even remember a time when Social Security didn't exist. It's something we've all grown up thinking, or at least HOPING would be there for us when we retired. Sadly, it's needed much more today than it was even just a few decades ago since fewer companies offer any pension at all let alone one someone could hope to survive on exclusively. One could say it's all our own responsibility to save for retirement, but there are millions who did just that only to have their savings disappear either because they unexpectedly and through no fault of their own became unemployed, because of an illness or injury or because it was simply lost to bad investments.
So, how do we save it? I know nobody wants to even discuss this, but I think a time will come when the payroll tax is going to have to be increased slightly. What I feel is the best solution is for wage earners to pay into Social Security all year on all of their income and not have it end at $110,000 or whatever the current amount is. Next, I understand the argument for raising the retirement age since life-expectancy has increased since SS began but the fact is that increase primarily benefits the higher income workers more than blue-collar workers. Maybe working past 65 or 66 doesn't seem too awful for a banker or an accountant but try doing it if you're a construction worker or a letter carrier. Anyway, the bottom line is although many will say it's "not fair" for the higher income workers to pay more into SS without increasing their monthly benefit, I think it probably often ends up being more than fair since those with the more physically demanding jobs will likely live fewer years on SS and therefore collect less in total. Means testing is another idea which will also be met with a lot of protests that it's not fair to the wealthy but I think some kind of compromise or incentive could be worked out if those in power put their minds to it in a non-partisan manner.
One thing about Social Security, Medicare and other programs for the elderly - all of us, whether we're liberal or conservative, have or had parents and grandparents and all of us, if we're lucky enough, will one day be one of the elderly. I think that's a pretty good incentive in itself to try to come up with a solution we all can live with although none of us will get EVERYTHING our own way.
Annie
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
23 Jun 11
In Wisconsin we have a public employee trust fund for retirement. How it works is the state hires someone to invest the money and the government (employer) pays 6% into the fund and the employee pays in 6% into the fund. It is considered an employee owned and controlled but overseen by the State. Several years ago the governor tried to borrow money from the fund and in a court battle it was established that it was a private fund and the state could not borrow money unless the Board (elected by participants) decided to invest in the state bonds.
When I see privatizing Social Security I see something like the Wisconsin model. The money is secure and politicians can not borrow from the fund at will. I think that we should continue to fund SS for those 55 and older under the present program but for those under 55 we should start switching to an investment based plan that could increase in value and keep the contributions level.
The biggest problem with SS is that it is controlled by politicians and they only do what will get them votes and not always in the best interest of the people.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
24 Jun 11
I respectfully disagree, Bob. Some of those under 55 have been working and paying into SS for nearly 40 years; they certainly deserve to get what they thought they were paying for all those years, don't you think? Also, much as I agree there are some politicians who aren't worth their weight in sh1t, at least we have some recourse with them since we can vote them out. I'm not sure I've come across a single private business for decades that had the best interests of the people at heart.
Annie


