It was early spring in the year 2048 and my bithday was coming up this August 26. I would
be turning 70 years and retirring. I am not looking forward to it as much as I thought.
My whole life I dreamed of moving to Florida and living on the beach when I retired. I
planned on traveling a lot seeing the great sites the country has to offer. All of these
plans have changed instead my yougest son is putting an addition on his house so that I
could move in. I am very thankful for what he is doing, but I really don't want to go.
I want my privacy and I'm sure he wants his too. There is no other choice I worked as
long as I could but I'm just getting to old. We all agree that I am not going into a
nursing especially me. If the government would have told us that they couldn't solve the
Social Security crisis almost 30 years ago I would have prepared better. But instead
they promised they could save it and the program would still be aruond when I retired.
They obviously lied and now I have nothing. Moments later I hear music its my alarm
clock. It was only a dream its April 1996 and I'm 18. The article about the Social
Security in the paper had me thinking and I must have a bad dream.
The Presidential election will be coming up this November '96 and the question that many
of Americans have on their mind is what are you going to about the Social Security
crisis? This question has our nation divided between generations. The elder people of
our nation (ages 50 and up) feel confident that Social Security will be there for them
and that it should be left alone. On the other hand the Baby Boomers (ages 31-49) and
Generation X (ages 18-30) lack this confidence fearing that they will never receive
Social Security, and the money they put in would be a waste. Many politicians are afraid
to touch this issue because the elder still make a large number of the voting block.
Speaking as a member of Generation X it is our duty to vote for change in Social Security
to ensure we will have something to look forward to when we retire. We can not wait any
longer to defeat this crisis.
The Social Security crisis is the threat of the Social Security system going bankrupt.
Well its more than just a threat its the reality. The common belief is that Social
Security is a saving fund where the government takes a certain percentage out of our
weekly pay. Then that money is put into a savings fund where it is held until we retire.
When we retire the money is returned to us in monthly checks plus the interest. This is
where we are wrong. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where the current
workforce pays for the present retirees, and then when they retire they will depend on
the younger workforce to pay for them and so on and so on. Which is fine when you always
have more workers then retirees. This is the problem the government will face when the
Baby Boomers retire in the year 2010. In 1950 there were 7.2 workers for each retiree.
Today there are 3.2 workers for every retiree, an by the year 2020 there will only be
2.4 or less for each retiree. By the year 2010-2015 Social Security is projected by the
government to pay out more money than it could take in. Since the current Social
Security took in a surplus of $60 billion last year with a projected total to be around
$5 trillion they will have enough money to last another 10 years or so. All in all
experts expect that Social Security will have spent every penny it has by the year 2030.
In actuality the bankruptcy will probably happen about ten years sooner. See there is a
catch to their surplus that not to many people know about. The surplus is put in to
government bonds so that government can use that money to support other programs and to
pay of other debts. Also when the government figures out the national debt they subtract
that surplus to make the national debt look smaller. The problem will come when Social
Security needs that surplus to support its program and the government has to pay of these
bonds. The United States will go further into debt having to severely raise taxes and
drastically cut government programs. Or they won't pay the their debt and the American
retirees will be out trillions of dollars.
There are also two other contradicting factors that boggle the minds of almost all
Americans. First as we all know the life expectancy of people is getting larger. In
1940 a man at the age of 65 could expect to live another 13 years; today they could
expect to live another 17 years. The government figures by the year 2000 many people will
have collected half as long as they have worked. The twisted part of the whole thing is
that citizens are beginning retire and collect benefits earlier then ever. More than
half of all retirees begin collecting benefits before they are 65. The average at which
people began collecting went from 68.7 in 1950 to 63.7 in 1991.
The Government has tried to institute new polices and reform old ones, but they are
falling short over the long run. In 1993 the President pushed a tax that stated 85% of
Social Security became taxable income to people with substantial amount of other
retirement savings such as pensions and personal savings. What they are telling is if
you are one the smart people in America that pre-planned your retirement with other
savings and not just Social Security they can put heavy tax on your Social Security
checks. Now you would have to pay twice once whiled you worked and again when you retire.
Its has if you are being punished for doing the right thing.
Another tactic many government official are trying to push is raising the payroll tax
2%. The current tax is 12.4%, 6.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer. This
would aid us temporarily, but would do nothing to stop the long term problem. "To
maintain the systems solvency, taxes would have to be increased, or benefits cut, between
one-half and 1 percent every 10 years" (Bosworth 36). If you do the math you will
realize by the time Generation X retires the payroll tax needed to keep Social Security
going will have almost doubled. The higher tax rates will start some sort of recession
with people getting far less out of their pay checks to live on. Anyway who wants pay
more taxes. They would also like to cut many of the benefits that Social Security
offers, but why should we pay more and receive less.
The U.S. government has dug itself into a whole waiting to the last minute to save
Social Security. When by simple demographics years ago would have showed the same
problem. They have to get it out of their heads that Social Security is such a great
system that can be saved. Well it was great a the time, but as we know times change.
The only way to save Social Security is to completely overhaul it. With the best way to
overhaul is by the introduction of partially privatizing Social Security.
It help bring Chile social security system out of bankruptcy. In 1981 Chile privatized
it social security by requiring their workers to put 10% of their pretax wages in private
pension funds. The funds are carefully regulated, and workers can switch among trust
fund managers for better returns or lower costs. They also receive periodic statements.
Upon their retirement they receive their money to buy annuity. What ever is left can be
passed onto their heirs. If there isn't enough to provide a descent living the
government steps in guaranteeing a minimum. Now Chile enjoys a high savings rate well
over 20% of their gross domestic product compared to the US's 3.2%.
The plan has been pushed here heavily in the states by Senator Robert Kerry of Nebraska
(D). The plan would not allow people to drop out of Social Security completely like some
other more radical plans, but to divert a percentage of their payroll tax into accounts
that work like Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's). The Senators plan proposes that
2% of the 12.4% tax would be taken out and placed in private accounts set up by the
government. The money would be one's own personal account with compound interest
(Congressional Digest 246). The Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation (IRET)
adds, "that they would not be able to touch that money until they retiree or become
disabled. The money is theirs the government would not be allowed to touch it. If that
person should die the money would be added to their estate" (Congressional Digest 248).
The Cato Institute (a nonprofit public policy research foundation founded in 1977 whose
publication, conferences, and seminars are designed to illuminate private sector,
voluntary solutions to social and economic problems) also adds, "that those presently in
the workforce would have the option of remaining in the current Social Security system or
switching to the new private system. Those entering the workforce after the
implementation of the new private system would be required to participate in the new
system. Thus the current system would be eventually phased out" (Congressional Digest
244). The plan also has guidelines to problems and questions that people have or arrive.
First off people begin to question the safety of the government handling their own
personal money. It a viable question considering our national debt and the way they
spend tax money, but the there is a viable answer. If you let people drop totally out of
Social Security and have their own pension plan there would be know way for the
government to keep track and ensure that people are saving. Then when these people begin
to retire and we find out that many of them never saved any money and will have no
monthly retirement checks we will have a poverty struck elder class that the government
would have to bail out. In conclusion to ensure that everyone has money set aside for
retirement the government has to control the money.
Another common critique is how much is 2% going to save? It wills save a lot more than
the average person thinks. Currently Social Security takes a dollar from the worker and
gives it directly to the retiree with no growth or interest. The IRET states, "With
compounding interest at a 7% real return, a dollar saved at age 20 would be worth $16 at
age 60 and $32 at the age of 70" Congressional Digest). That's more then the current
system could ever own up to.
Many critics also wanted to know what would the new system do about people who earned
low wages and wouldn't have a substantial amount of money set aside to pay for
retirement. The Cato institute proposes a minimum savings amount, acting as safety net.
It would be a number to a similar to the minimum wage where if the individual doesn't
meet the amount specified to earn a livable monthly payment the government would
supplement the difference to bring the monthly income up to the correct level. The money
would come out of the other 10.4% that people still pay into. They also report
considering the rate of return even someone making minimum wage their entire life would
still have enough to meet the monthly requirement (Congressional Digest 244). Concluding
that the safety net would only support a scarce few. This would also keep our nations
poverty level up.
A questions many Americans have is where do we begin? You begin with all age groups
including people in their forties and fifties. For these people who are getting close to
retirement and wouldn't have a substantial amount saved up the government would take the
benefits earned from year to date and put them into a bond. The bound would be put along
with the 2% they begin saving. The money would earn interest together so when these
people retire they will be shore to receive the money they deserve and then some
(Investment Company Institute Congressional Digest 252).
The only problem the plan doesn't solve is the problem that can't be solved. This is
how do you support the people already collecting their Social Security. Social Security
will have to use their surplus, but as stated the government has already used this money.
In order for people to get the money they deserve the government will have to cut their
loses and pay back their bonds. It will severely hurt the budget, but what choose is
there. No plan would have been able to solve this dilemma it would have happened anyway.
What more can you say? The time to change the Social Security system has come. The
program considered by many to the prominent leg of the three legged retirement stool,
along with pensions and personal savings, is growing week. "...the result for retirees
almost certainly will mean that the one leg of three legged retirement stool is going to
get wobblier" (Wechsler 25). The government is going to have to act now to prepare for
the future because if they wait any longer the leg mine as well just fall off. The
government is there for the people and I'm sure they don't want the suffering of
Generation X retirees on their conscious. I don't want this to happen. I would like to
work hard in my life looking forward to luxury of retirement at the end, and as a
citizen of this country I should be given that right. If the system goes bankrupt that
luxury just maybe taken away.
The only way to ensure that Social Security will be around for the young people of this
country is to instate the partially privatization plan. Years ago it was considered to
radical of an idea, but now it seems that there really no other choice. It's the only
plan that shows some hard facts to support it goals unlike many of the other plans by
Congress or President. You have read the argument and you now the facts I don't know
how anyone could think otherwise. It took Chile out of bankruptcy it will do the same for
us to. What do have to lose.
It was early spring in the year 2048 and my bithday was coming up this August 26. I
would be turning 70 years and retirring. I am not looking forward to it as much as I
thought. My whole life I dreamed of moving to Florida and living on the beach when I
retired. I planned on traveling a lot seeing the great sites the country has to offer.
All of these plans have changed instead my yougest son is putting an addition on his
house so that I could move in. I am very thankful for what he is doing, but I really
don't want to go. I want my privacy and I'm sure he wants his too. There is no other
choice I worked as long as I could but I'm just getting to old. We all agree that I am
not going into a nursing especially me. If the government would have told us that they
couldn't solve the Social Security crisis almost 30 years ago I would have prepared
better. But instead they promised they could save it and the program would still be
aruond when I retired. They obviously lied and now I have nothing. Moments later I hear
music its my alarm clock. It was only a dream its April 1996 and I'm 18. The article
about the Social Security in the paper had me thinking and I must have a bad dream.
The Presidential election will be coming up this November '96 and the question that many
of Americans have on their mind is what are you going to about the Social Security
crisis? This question has our nation divided between generations. The elder people of
our nation (ages 50 and up) feel confident that Social Security will be there for them
and that it should be left alone. On the other hand the Baby Boomers (ages 31-49) and
Generation X (ages 18-30) lack this confidence fearing that they will never receive
Social Security, and the money they put in would be a waste. Many politicians are afraid
to touch this issue because the elder still make a large number of the voting block.
Speaking as a member of Generation X it is our duty to vote for change in Social Security
to ensure we will have something to look forward to when we retire. We can not wait any
longer to defeat this crisis.
The Social Security crisis is the threat of the Social Security system going bankrupt.
Well its more than just a threat its the reality. The common belief is that Social
Security is a saving fund where the government takes a certain percentage out of our
weekly pay. Then that money is put into a savings fund where it is held until we retire.
When we retire the money is returned to us in monthly checks plus the interest. This is
where we are wrong. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where the current
workforce pays for the present retirees, and then when they retire they will depend on
the younger workforce to pay for them and so on and so on. Which is fine when you always
have more workers then retirees. This is the problem the government will face when the
Baby Boomers retire in the year 2010. In 1950 there were 7.2 workers for each retiree.
Today there are 3.2 workers for every retiree, an by the year 2020 there will only be
2.4 or less for each retiree. By the year 2010-2015 Social Security is projected by the
government to pay out more money than it could take in. Since the current Social
Security took in a surplus of $60 billion last year with a projected total to be around
$5 trillion they will have enough money to last another 10 years or so. All in all
experts expect that Social Security will have spent every penny it has by the year 2030.
In actuality the bankruptcy will probably happen about ten years sooner. See there is a
catch to their surplus that not to many people know about. The surplus is put in to
government bonds so that government can use that money to support other programs and to
pay of other debts. Also when the government figures out the national debt they subtract
that surplus to make the national debt look smaller. The problem will come when Social
Security needs that surplus to support its program and the government has to pay of these
bonds. The United States will go further into debt having to severely raise taxes and
drastically cut government programs. Or they won't pay the their debt and the American
retirees will be out trillions of dollars.
There are also two other contradicting factors that boggle the minds of almost all
Americans. First as we all know the life expectancy of people is getting larger. In
1940 a man at the age of 65 could expect to live another 13 years; today they could
expect to live another 17 years. The government figures by the year 2000 many people will
have collected half as long as they have worked. The twisted part of the whole thing is
that citizens are beginning retire and collect benefits earlier then ever. More than
half of all retirees begin collecting benefits before they are 65. The average at which
people began collecting went from 68.7 in 1950 to 63.7 in 1991.
The Government has tried to institute new polices and reform old ones, but they are
falling short over the long run. In 1993 the President pushed a tax that stated 85% of
Social Security became taxable income to people with substantial amount of other
retirement savings such as pensions and personal savings. What they are telling is if
you are one the smart people in America that pre-planned your retirement with other
savings and not just Social Security they can put heavy tax on your Social Security
checks. Now you would have to pay twice once whiled you worked and again when you retire.
Its has if you are being punished for doing the right thing.
Another tactic many government official are trying to push is raising the payroll tax
2%. The current tax is 12.4%, 6.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer. This
would aid us temporarily, but would do nothing to stop the long term problem. "To
maintain the systems solvency, taxes would have to be increased, or benefits cut, between
one-half and 1 percent every 10 years" (Bosworth 36). If you do the math you will
realize by the time Generation X retires the payroll tax needed to keep Social Security
going will have almost doubled. The higher tax rates will start some sort of recession
with people getting far less out of their pay checks to live on. Anyway who wants pay
more taxes. They would also like to cut many of the benefits that Social Security
offers, but why should we pay more and receive less.
The U.S. government has dug itself into a whole waiting to the last minute to save
Social Security. When by simple demographics years ago would have showed the same
problem. They have to get it out of their heads that Social Security is such a great
system that can be saved. Well it was great a the time, but as we know times change.
The only way to save Social Security is to completely overhaul it. With the best way to
overhaul is by the introduction of partially privatizing Social Security.
It help bring Chile social security system out of bankruptcy. In 1981 Chile privatized
it social security by requiring their workers to put 10% of their pretax wages in private
pension funds. The funds are carefully regulated, and workers can switch among trust
fund managers for better returns or lower costs. They also receive periodic statements.
Upon their retirement they receive their money to buy annuity. What ever is left can be
passed onto their heirs. If there isn't enough to provide a descent living the
government steps in guaranteeing a minimum. Now Chile enjoys a high savings rate well
over 20% of their gross domestic product compared to the US's 3.2%.
The plan has been pushed here heavily in the states by Senator Robert Kerry of Nebraska
(D). The plan would not allow people to drop out of Social Security completely like some
other more radical plans, but to divert a percentage of their payroll tax into accounts
that work like Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's). The Senators plan proposes that
2% of the 12.4% tax would be taken out and placed in private accounts set up by the
government. The money would be one's own personal account with compound interest
(Congressional Digest 246). The Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation (IRET)
adds, "that they would not be able to touch that money until they retiree or become
disabled. The money is theirs the government would not be allowed to touch it. If that
person should die the money would be added to their estate" (Congressional Digest 248).
The Cato Institute (a nonprofit public policy research foundation founded in 1977 whose
publication, conferences, and seminars are designed to illuminate private sector,
voluntary solutions to social and economic problems) also adds, "that those presently in
the workforce would have the option of remaining in the current Social Security system or
switching to the new private system. Those entering the workforce after the
implementation of the new private system would be required to participate in the new
system. Thus the current system would be eventually phased out" (Congressional Digest
244). The plan also has guidelines to problems and questions that people have or arrive.
First off people begin to question the safety of the government handling their own
personal money. It a viable question considering our national debt and the way they
spend tax money, but the there is a viable answer. If you let people drop totally out of
Social Security and have their own pension plan there would be know way for the
government to keep track and ensure that people are saving. Then when these people begin
to retire and we find out that many of them never saved any money and will have no
monthly retirement checks we will have a poverty struck elder class that the government
would have to bail out. In conclusion to ensure that everyone has money set aside for
retirement the government has to control the money.
Another common critique is how much is 2% going to save? It wills save a lot more than
the average person thinks. Currently Social Security takes a dollar from the worker and
gives it directly to the retiree with no growth or interest. The IRET states, "With
compounding interest at a 7% real return, a dollar saved at age 20 would be worth $16 at
age 60 and $32 at the age of 70" Congressional Digest). That's more then the current
system could ever own up to.
Many critics also wanted to know what would the new system do about people who earned
low wages and wouldn't have a substantial amount of money set aside to pay for
retirement. The Cato institute proposes a minimum savings amount, acting as safety net.
It would be a number to a similar to the minimum wage where if the individual doesn't
meet the amount specified to earn a livable monthly payment the government would
supplement the difference to bring the monthly income up to the correct level. The money
would come out of the other 10.4% that people still pay into. They also report
considering the rate of return even someone making minimum wage their entire life would
still have enough to meet the monthly requirement (Congressional Digest 244). Concluding
that the safety net would only support a scarce few. This would also keep our nations
poverty level up.
A questions many Americans have is where do we begin? You begin with all age groups
including people in their forties and fifties. For these people who are getting close to
retirement and wouldn't have a substantial amount saved up the government would take the
benefits earned from year to date and put them into a bond. The bound would be put along
with the 2% they begin saving. The money would earn interest together so when these
people retire they will be shore to receive the money they deserve and then some
(Investment Company Institute Congressional Digest 252).
The only problem the plan doesn't solve is the problem that can't be solved. This is
how do you support the people already collecting their Social Security. Social Security
will have to use their surplus, but as stated the government has already used this money.
In order for people to get the money they deserve the government will have to cut their
loses and pay back their bonds. It will severely hurt the budget, but what choose is
there. No plan would have been able to solve this dilemma it would have happened anyway.
What more can you say? The time to change the Social Security system has come. The
program considered by many to the prominent leg of the three legged retirement stool,
along with pensions and personal savings, is growing week. "...the result for retirees
almost certainly will mean that the one leg of three legged retirement stool is going to
get wobblier" (Wechsler 25). The government is going to have to act now to prepare for
the future because if they wait any longer the leg mine as well just fall off. The
government is there for the people and I'm sure they don't want the suffering of
Generation X retirees on their conscious. I don't want this to happen. I would like to
work hard in my life looking forward to luxury of retirement at the end, and as a
citizen of this country I should be given that right. If the system goes bankrupt that
luxury just maybe taken away.
The only way to ensure that Social Security will be around for the young people of this
country is to instate the partially privatization plan. Years ago it was considered to
radical of an idea, but now it seems that there really no other choice. It's the only
plan that shows some hard facts to support it goals unlike many of the other plans by
Congress or President. You have read the argument and you now the facts I don't know
how anyone could think otherwise. It took Chile out of bankruptcy it will do the same for
us to. What do have to lose.
The Presidential election will be coming up this November and the question that many of
Americans have on their mind is what are you going to about the Social Security crisis?
This question has our nation divided between generations. The elder people of our nation
(ages 50 and up) fell confident that Social Security will be there for them and that it
should be left alone. On the other hand the Baby Boomers (ages 31-49) and Generation X
(ages 18-30) lack this confidence fearing that they will never receive Social Security,
and the money they put in would be a waste. Many politicians are afraid to touch this
issue because the elder still make a large number of the voting block. Speaking as a
member it is our duty to vote for change in Social Security to ensure we will have
something to look forward to when we retire. We can not wait any longer to defeat this
crisis.
For those who don't know the Social Security crisis is the threat that Social Security
may go bankrupt. Well its more than just a threat its the reality. The common belief
is that Social Security is a saving fund where the government takes a certain percentage
out of our weekly pay. Then that money is put into a savings fund where it is held until
you retire. When they retire money is returned to them in monthly checks plus the
interest. This is where they are wrong. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where
the current
workforce pays for the present retirees, and then when they retire they will depend on
the workforce and so on and so on. Which is fine when you always have more workers then
retirees. This is the problem the government will face when the Baby Boomers retire in
the year 2010. In 1950 there were 7.2 workers for each retiree. Today there are 3.2
workers for every retiree, an by the year 2020 there will only be 2.4 or less for each
retiree. By the year 2010-2015 Social Security is projected by the government to pay out
more money than it could take in. Since the current Social Security took in a surplus of
$60 billion last year with a projected total to be around $5 trillion they will have
enough money to last another 10 years or so. All in all experts expect that Social
Security will have spent every penny it has by the year 2030
|