Everybody with a job pays the "Social Security" tax, along with many others. I'm not sure what the rate is, but I know it can be quite a bit, especially if happened to pull in a bonus for month. The money taken from this tax goes to the Social Security Trust Fund which provides a subsistence allowance to retirees and the disabled. So what's the problem? Many argue that the fund is broken; insolvent. They believe that we should privatize it, or at least allow some of the younger workers the option to invest a portion of their social security payments into a personal retirement plan. Furthermore, others have called for a complete repeal of Social Security, calling it an "entitlement" system. I agree with the idea that giving younger Americans the option to take personal responsibility for their own retirement, however, I strongly oppose the dismantling of our Social Security system.
It's painfully obvious that the system is indeed broken. It is underfunded, therefore, providing an unreasonable amount a person can live on with rising prices in today's market. When FDR created Social Security as part of his "New Deal", it proved to be a huge success. Of course, in those days, there were five workers to every retiree. Flip that scenario. There is now only one worker to every five retirees, so you can understand how much of a burden we are putting on the trust fund. But does this mean we abolish the system? Does this mean we destroy a program that unfairly denies benefits to those who put into it themselves? No. The question is not, how do we get rid of it? The question is, how do we fix it?
It's not an easy one to answer. Many retirees and disabled citizens depend on social security. To eradicate it would be irresponsible because not only are you taking someone's income, you're stripping them of their livelihood.
So I ask again: how do we fix it?
We can start off by getting Americans working again. The more money we are bringing in, the more the government has to fund it. But how do we get Americans working? It's government's job to create an environment of competition among businesses; for success. First things first: cut the red tape. Get rid of unnecessary, burdensome regulations. The only regulation a government should impose on the market is to ensure monopolies don't occur. After all, we want competition, not a single company who can charge what it wants.
Second, we cut corporate taxes! Sounds simple enough. But what we must remember is that cutting taxes and deregulating our economy isn't enough to get businesses hiring again. They need to see optimism. If they are confident that our market isn't going to collapse, or the economy is on the upswing, then they will hire. Unfortunately, with the debt the United States has accrued due to trillions of dollars of deficit spending, there's not much to go around. Also, inflation is a major concern. The Federal Reserve believes its policy of printing money is aiding some sort of economic recovery, when in fact, it's only exacerbating the situation. (Note: Inflation is not a rise in prices. Inflation is the increase of the money supply causing a rise in prices. This is basic economics. The more money in circulation, the less the value of a dollar. A dollar now buys less, resulting in higher prices to make up for the lost value.) The Fed needs to be abolished and the money supply deflated. Bring in a competing currency -- like gold and silver -- to offset the loss of cash. A balanced budget needs to passed with severe cuts in the trillions, and payment of the entire national debt. This will create a positive environment for businesses to succeed.
A large portion of the cuts I mentioned above are coming from the Department of Defense. We will not scale back our military. I would like to maintain that, if possible. However, overseas spending is what's hurting the back of the Unites States economy. Wars cost money. So do the bases we use to house our troops. Most U.S. military bases cost millions to maintain -- we have hundreds! I bet if we brought home all military personnel, we might just have enough to keep social security solvent.
Some may ask the question: "But Chris, isn't Social Security big government? Isn't it an entitlement program?" Yeah, maybe so. But wouldn't you want a return on your investment? Is it not fair to receive the very same benefits others got when you supported them? I think it is. So what if it's an entitlement program? When the time comes, you'll be receiving the same benefits.
But, to be fair, if our incompetent politicians can't come up with a solution to the problem, social security will have to be gradually phased out. Here's how this plan works:
1) Those already receiving benefits can continue to claim them if they so choose.
2) For those of a certain age or younger, give them the option of a) continuing paying into the system b) getting off of the system and financing their own retirement, or c) allow them to invest a portion into a private account.
3) If necessary, increase the retirement age. We shouldn't have to do this if we follow the steps above (i.e, balanced budget, paying down debt, removing troops from foreign soil).
4) Cut some benefits for those who also have private retirement accounts. I generally wouldn't support this, but desperate times for call for desperate measures.
5) This is an absolute last resort, because I would absolutely hate to do this: Raise the SS tax.
These are just some ideas. I don't know if they would actually work, but at least I'm attempting to think of a solution to a very real dilemma. I'm also being brutally honest. I mean, how many politicians do you know say they're going to raise your taxes (besides President Obama)? I can literally count them on one hand!
Supporting SS for me is troubling because I generally favor smaller government. But because it worked before, it means we can make it work again. We're just going to have to think outside of the box.
No comments:
Post a Comment