Is there anyway to mend the Social Security problem?

Question

Will it be an easy problem to solve once the baby boom generation passes? or will it just get worse?

bebe...your answer shows how little you know about what we are talking about...bush has nothing to do with the social security problem...that is 100% on congress, now if they gave bush a bill and he veto'd it then yea its his fault, but they cant even give him anything...

Answer 1

When we buy car insurance, we hope we never are in an accident and have to file a claim.
When we buy house insurance, we hope we never have to file a claim because our house burned down.
Social Security was intended as an insurance program and it must return to that. It has become the biggest of all government give-aways. Social Security payments should NOT be available to those retirees who have been fortunate enough to acquire a nest egg of their own; who own two homes, travel on luxury cruises, and drive luxury automobiles; who are still able to work and earn an income, or who have sufficient funds to provide for themselves.
The argument is, "I paid into it; I should get it back." BULL!!
You paid into a pool, just like you paid into a pool for car insureds or home insureds. If you're one of the lucky ones who was able to provide a comfortable retirement for yourself, why should you expect to get a hand-out from the government?
I know millionaires who are collecting Social Security, and I think it's disgraceful. Social Security should be available only to those who are truly in need, destitute, and who have 'spent down' their savings. But as arrogance, avarice and hubris sets in, Americans believe they are 'entitled' to it (many of these greedy Americans are the same people who don't believe it's the government's job to give hand-outs to unwed mothers, poor people, sick, elderly, underprivileged, disadvantaged, hungry or homeless). Many of these greedy Americans are also the ones who think our 'corporate welfare' programs are acceptable ways for government to piss away taxpayers' dollars.
Alexander Tyler once said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Selfish, greedy, money-mongers are squandering the Social Security 'insurance funds' that should have always - and only - been set aside for the truly needy. -RKO- 10/06/07

Answer 2

Its solvable--but both sides will have to drop the self-interest and ideology to do it (yeah, I know, pigs might grow wings, too).

As for the comments about Bush--you are correct on one level. But Bush did make a proposal a few years back that amounted to nothing more than shunting a lot of the social security money into the stock market--which would simply drive up stock prices without adding anything to the economy. But woudld have been a windfall for his pals. That's where the criticism is coming from--and its justified, as far as it goes.

But--how to solve the problem? One part--the Medicare/Medicaid programs--can be fixed fairly easily (in the sense its not hard to see how to get the corruption out of the system, which is about half the cost). But the retirement program is a tricky one.

Oddly enough, IF the idea Goldwater had 45 years ago had been implemented--switching from a "general fund" to an " individual account" system had been implemented then, it would have worked NOTE--this IS NOT what Bush was proposing.

And--ultimately, that is probably the answer. Doing it now, however, is going to be a long-term project (several decades, to do it right; in the early sixties sss was still relative new and would have been much easier to reform). The key is balancing out the current system so that current/future recipients get their pensions until a population of people with individualized accounts takes their place (like I said,decades).

One approach would be to switch this over for anyone under the age of say 35, with a guarantee that their account would pay at least as much as the old system (pretty much a given). Make the individual contributions the funding for such accounts and reserve employer contributions for covering those who can't work--the disabled population, and to cover the ggap in funding. But--we woudld have to commit a lot of general tax revenues to do this.

Ultimately, it would actually pay off, though. Individual accounts--restricted to bonds, etc--NOT high risk investments like the stock marke--would provide a source of real capital that would be a fantastic driver of long term economic growth. That would offset the increased costs over time.

That's one way of solving the problem--there may be others. But we won't get any of them--that work, anyway--unless and until people get serious about finding solutions, instead of relying on political ideology and slogans.

Answer 3

Love the question and the answers too, have to say I agree with what is being said, the only trouble is will any politician have the guts to mend it .....it's not something that is very vote winning, Labour has had a couple of attempts during the past decade to try to sort out people claiming incapacity and disability benefits who are not ill and capable of work but it was not popular so it was never really got under way and just was popped to one side while they got on with "nice" policies

It will take more than the baby boom generation passing and the gutless government to sort this one out ....

Answer 4

Social Security can be mended.

As a defined benefit plan, meaning that the benefit payed to someone by the system is defined by what they contributed while working, the system would work if there actually were a social security trust fund or lock box because a persons contributions could grow untouched and pay the defined benefit.

The problem with the program is that it is pay as you go. As workers pay into the system, beneficiaries draw from it. The system is out of balance because fewer now pay in than draw benefits. The only way to re-balance the system as it works now is to lower benefits and or raise social security taxes in order balance what is coming in with what is being payed out.

Since Social Security is supposed to be a disability program, not a retirement program, changing it seems to be the better option.

First the contributions made by employees need to go into personal account for them when they reach the age that social security defines them as too old to work (67 right now but it keeps going up).

Employer matching funds should go into a general account that can only be used to pay benefits. In the future the amount employers have to pay into the general fund can be raised or lowered depending on the balance of the general fund.

The cost of phasing in such a system is the obstacle. Current beneficiaries would have to continue to be paid and the loss of access to employee contributions means the money would have to come from somewhere else.

Middle-aged workers closer to disability retirement age (67 as defined before) would not have time to develop any significant balance in a personal account, and would likely lobby for some sort of payment into their account by the government to make up for what they already paid into the current system.

Younger workers will not want their taxes going up to pay for the older generations.

And Politicians will not want to make the hard decisions for fear of losing their job to the next candidate that says can make the current system work.

Yes it can be mended, we just have to be willing as a people to pay the price or accept the consequences of pushing the burden down the road to the next generation again.

Answer 5

It is actually child like in its simplicity. Stop the congress from raiding the SS trust fund. If congress put back all the money they have taken over the the last 20 years, to spend on their little pet projects, SS would be solvent forever. Everyone laughed at Al Gore, when he kept talking about the lock box in 2000. As much as I hate to agree with him on anything, he was 100% right here. They inact laws to prevent the private sector from stealing like they do on a regular basis. When companies give employees a pension plan, the money goes in and cannot come out of the fund without congressional or employee approval. This stops plundering of the funds. Congress, on the other hand, like a drug adict can justify their doing it for the common good. So, when we are all old, broke and eating from dumpsters we can be happy to know that a congressman 30 years earlier wasted our money in a meriad of useless ways.

Answer 6

Too many people living here are creating this problem. We need to get our population down by a good 20 million in order for everything to fall back into place. Waiting for the baby boom to pass won't really help, not with migrants turning up in their thousands every day. And sadly it's the people in genuine need, elderly, disabled, who will always be the first to suffer when the Social Security fund starts to run short.

Answer 7

YES - Here are a couple.

Parents should be made responsible for their children until they are 21 years of age.

That would stop thousands of school leaving girls from getting pregnant and being given furnished accommodation, costing the nation millions of pounds per year.

Why should children because they reach a certain age and leave school, be given anything by the government. One minute you get nothing, the next you are given a wad of notes for doing nothing.

There should be a national minimum wage for working people and disabled people who don't or can't work, should be given this minimum wage, plus a little extra to compensate for things they require, but they should have to buy their own motor vehicles.

I know a number of disabled people who get brand new cars who never get a ride in them Members of their families use them as if they were theirs and not the disabled persons.

Immigrants who come to this country should only be allowed to stay if they can prove they have a job or have money of their own to survive for at least 1 year. It amazes me that immigrants can spend thousands of pounds getting here but once they do get here they have 'nothing' and go straight onto claiming benefits.

One could go on forever finding ways to stop abuses within the Social Security system...

Answer 8

look at the programe on chanel 4 last week this imagrant is getting £33000 a year of the state just think how many more people there are over here getting this much deport them or say u not work you get out the social security in this countrty should be for the british

Answer 9

Yes, it can be repaired. No one in government has the will to do it.
We have to use means tests. That is pay benefits only to the needy. Social Security is a tax and we should not be forcing poorer people to pay a tax just to give money to richer people.
That is the opposite of socialism.

Answer 10

it seems to me! to be social suicide to let thousands of people a week flood on to a small island all!! having to be taken care of by the state fund. and then allow half of them to remain on social security. and take up all of our social housing. i cant believe the government is completely stupid SO!! with that in mind, i think the whole immigration fiasco is designed to take our minds away from being sold off to the EU. PLUS!! immigrants are more likely to vote yes! to go into the EU because they have no loyalty or care for what ever happens to Briton. to immigrants Briton simply represents a gravy train. a bottomless financial resorce.