Social Security in the U.S.?

Question

1)what do you think of the current Social Security System in the U.S.?
2)what, if any, do you think are the main problems with the current system and what makes you believe so?
3)what would you say are the causes of these problems?
4)do you think we ought to continue with the program as it is, or make changes?
5)if you advocate changing the system, how would you suggest doing so?

i would really appreciate your thoughts on this subject for a research assignment i am doing :]]

Answer 1

Social[ist] [in]Security as I like to call it, is the greatest insurance scam ever.
From a return on investment point of view, it's horrible. Any IRA, 401k, and probably any basic savings account (even at their abyssmal interest rates) would provide a better ROI. Hell, stuffing cash under a mattress is arguably better. There are no individual accounts, contrary to what many believe. The taxes collected now are going out as benefits, minus the administrative costs of course. The so-called SSA fund is essentially a bookkeeping entry in the General Fund of the Treasury. There is also no security in SS.

"There is no claim here that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual, and may be altered or even eliminated at any time." Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 575 (1979); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 608-611 (1960). - United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 101 S.Ct. 453, 459 (1980)

It's supposedly a voluntary system. One must request a SS number and it is not required "just for the sake of having one." The reason is to participate in the program (why would any american not want to participate in this wonderful program... anyone that says they don't is just too young to know better, they will thank us when they can collect the benefits which should just about cover the cost of their food.) Although it's forced involuntarily upon everyone. Parents are coerced into getting SSN's for their children at birth with no practical way to refuse. There is no way to opt-out of the system once you have a number. The SSA will gladly oblige if you decide not to collect any benefits, but that doesn't mean they will stop collecting the taxes from you and certainly won't cancel your SSN. It is closely tied into the income tax which is another matter altogether.

The system is bankrupt already, though the SSA admits that they are facing financial problems in the next few years by saying that they will begin paying more in benefits than is received in taxes.

Quite simply the system was flawed to begin with. But that's not surprising seeing how it was put in place by FDR, who started a whole slew of socialist programs in his "New Deal", several of which were later deemed unconstitutional. There are probably more still in existence which are unconstitutional, though they haven't been challenged. Social Security is arguably unconstitutional.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content."
http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/2/109

The SSA should be abolished. Cash everyone out. Let the people make their own financial decisions.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Forcing people to participate in the system, however altruistic the notion, is simply unamerican.

"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

The government argument as to why it can't take such an extreme action as I propose would mostly hinge on that it can't afford it. However, the dollars aren't worth the paper they are printed on and the debt of government is entirely different matter.
Unemployment from eliminating several thousand taxpayer funded government employees is likewise a moot point. Although unfortunately the vast majority of government employees are drones that only do what they are told and have no thoughts of their own and would quite likely have trouble functioning in a free market economy. But on the flip side there are plenty of companies that like such traits in an employee.

Answer 2

1) The current SS system is broken - it is already in deficit, and will run out of money very soon. It was a flawed system since it was created, because they didn't account for the baby-boomer generation.
2) The problem is that people cannot opt-out. Young people will be paying into the system while they will not benefit from it, because when the baby-boomers retire, there will be no money left for the younger generations. There are less young people to support the old people (1 young person supporting 5 old people)
3) The cause of the problem is that there is no opt-out allowed, and that they didn't account for the baby-boomers retiring en-masse. There are over 70 million retiring, already beginning.
4) No, we should not continue this program as it is, because it is a disaster waiting to happen. The main change would be to allow alternative retirement plans, and to allow people to opt-out of the system, especially if they can't benefit from it in the future.
5) See above. Allow people to opt-out, and allow alternative retirement savings programs. And don't tax the savings - never tax the savings (before, during, and after)! The less taxes, the better.

Answer 3

The biggest problem with the current system is that single pay into it all their lives and die before collecting a dime, thereby subsidizing everyone else - the other biggest problem is that Congress has treated the excess payments into the social security system as a cookie jar, handing out goodies each election cycle to various causes to make themselves look good - the other biggest problem is that many payouts are made from the system that have nothing to do with retirement and should be paid out of general tax revenue so that millionaires can also contribute to supporting the things that prevent riots in the streets and assaults upon their own extravagant wealth.

Answer 4

The moment (which occurred nearly immediately after it's inception) that the Social Security "Lock Box" was opened to fund various other entitlement programs, it's inevitable failure was assured. I personally wouldn't specifically identify any specific group as having been the guiding force for the destruction of Social Security... Who know's, maybe Obama doesn't know that until 1994, the Republican party had not held a majority in the house since the 83rd Congress in 1952

Answer 5

Just a general answer-I think we have abused the system by adding disability to it. We've sucked the system dry by borrowing from it. I worry that it will disappear despite the fact that I have paid into it for my whole life. I planned a pretty good life and worked for it and finally got hurt. You really can't rely on life to be fair and give you an even break so keep that in mind when you do your paper. I managed to return to college and start a new career rather than fall on disability but I am unable to work full time and as each day goes by part-time is harder and harder. I took SS at 62 because I can't make it financially. I've become diabetic along with the rest and the medicine that keeps me alive is terribly expensive even with the insurance I have. As prices go up, my status quo goes down. Without SS I'm not sure what I would do but with it life is better. When you are younger it is impossible to know what old age is like. I drove a city bus for years and used to laugh with the older generation as they hobbled up the steps and made a lot of comments to cover how slow they were. I felt for them but did not understand. Here's a piece of free advice. Each morning when you get out of bed and you draw in that deep breath, stretch, and then hop to your feet. Relish that nothing hurts and enjoy every minute of it. Good luck with your paper.

Answer 6

The two biggest problems are:

1. Although it was set up to be a supplementary source of income, the end result is that for millions of seniors, it's the primary source of income.

2. It's set up as a giant Ponzi scheme where younger workers have to pay for the older retirees. Great as long as the older folks die off quickly, but now that they are living longer, it's just not financially feasible.

If it had been set up from the beginning as a private retirement account that you had to make mandatory contributions, everyone would be far better off.

At this point, I don't think privatizing it is financially feasible due to the numbers. I think benefits need to be cut gradually by 20%, and private retirement savings HIGHLY encouraged. A good step would be to set up Super Roth IRAs and 401Ks, where money isn't taxed period, either when earned or when withdrawn. Yes, it'll hit the gov't tax receipts now, but is well worth it to help us out later.

Answer 7

Right now illegals are collecting out of Social Security, and
retiring in Mexico, even if they did not pay into it.