General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSocial Security is the most successful program ever created for average working people.
It cannot be destroyed so long as people continue to pay into it. It is supported by a continuing source of revenue. Even if nothing is done to the program between now and 50 years from now, people would still be able to receive at least 75% of the present rate. That would still be a very good deal.
Our entire country is better off with Social Security. Our society is richer when our old folks have the independence and security offered by Social Security. Politicians should not be talking about cutting SS, they should be talking about how to improve it and save it for future generations.
Some folks believe they would be better taking that 7 1/2% of their income and investing it themselves. That might work for some folks but it could all disappear overnight also, with the way modern capitalists manipulate the markets. It would be a foolish gamble.
Democrats need to reassure the people that they believe in Social Security and they should be willing to stake their political lives and careers on saving it. We don't need mealy-mouthed politicians that make half-hearted gestures and play political budget games with the program. Of course, Republicans have always wanted to destroy it. Democrats that do not have that historical perspective have no business representing us in Washington.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)at heart. We should be talking about expanding it using it to improve the lives of our citizens.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Here we are, 12 years later, and the greedy Republicans are still trying to get their sticky little fingers on all that money in the Social Security fund.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, the projection that Social Security tax revenues will suffice to cover 75% of benefits is based on pessimistic assumptions about long-term economic growth. There's good reason to believe that, even without any changes to the program, the revenue would cover a higher percentage, perhaps even 100%. Projecting the economy 50 years out is a chancy business. The 75% number shouldn't be taken as carved in stone. (Of course, it does represent a danger, which is why raising or eliminating the cap now would be a good idea.)
Second, I don't know where you get the figure of 7 1/2% of income as the Social Security tax. The basic underlying rule is that the employee and employer each pay 6.2% of the employee's income. Various temporary tax holidays have knocked two points off the employer's and/or employee's obligation. It may well turn out to be hard to get back to the underlying rule, but there's no circumstance under which the obligation comes to 7.5%.
Also, about your observation that it would be a "foolish gamble" for people to risk their retirement entirely on the stock market, it should be added that the gamblers wouldn't be the only ones affected. If imprudent old people are starving to death in the streets, society (i.e. we taxpayers) would step in. Social Security protects the retirees and it protects the rest of us from having to bail them out.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I am collecting social security, and without it I would be eating cat food.