Proposals to alter Social Stability Rewards

Throughout quite a few elections, we now have heard proposals from politicians to alter or change Social Safety positive aspects. On this paper, I’m going to analysis and assess these proposals to discover out whether or not they'd be helpful to your Social Security fund, how it will impact all of us during the upcoming, as well as the existing beneficiaries who get Social Stability.

“The vital issue for Social Stability is that, since the inhabitants ages, shortly there'll not be enough men and women having to pay Social Security taxes to provide gains for every retired man or woman.” (Dilulio & Wilson 486). This is why so many politicians have proposed changes on the recent system. The people in my generation might not see any benefits when it’s our time to retire. “In 1950, there were 16 workers to support each individual one beneficiary of Social Safety; today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting just about every Social Security beneficiary.” (White House). If Social Stability stays unchanged at this rate, Social Protection will be spending out more than it takes in. If we ever reach this stage we will be left with two problems, a lot of persons paying into the system now will be cut off of Social Safety, or the government will borrow more money to pay the beneficiaries, which will increase the national debt.

“Unless otherwise stated, payment levels apply equally to aged, blind, and disabled persons.” (State assistance programs for SSI recipients, 3) I believe that if the Social Safety fund only funded beneficiaries who are aged, we would not have such a low number today of 3.3 workers supporting every single Social Protection beneficiary. “The Budget Enforcement Act, for example, excluded the receipts and disbursements of Social Stability from the President’s budget along with the congressional budget resolution. Programs that have been excluded like this are called “off-budget”.” (Collender 12)

Robert M. Ball has proposed a plan to change Social Stability while arguing against President Bush’s proposal of private accounts. One thing that Ball has proposed was, “Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Stability so that once again 90 percent of all such earnings would be taxed and counted for benefits” (Ball 2). I believe the means of using tax to fix Social Security will work while in the short run, but not while in the long. If we do take this approach, should we gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Stability even more from the long term when Social Safety has gone further into debt? Another proposed modify by Ball was, “An estate tax is a highly progressive way of meeting this cost, and dedicating it to Social Protection would strengthen the contributory.” (Ball 3) Now an estate tax, or sometimes called a “death tax”, is a tax on a person’s estate depending on how much he or she was worth. Again, I see a issue with this proposal because Ball is suggesting that we use another means of tax to be paid into Social Safety. I personally think it’s wrong to even have an estate tax because those who are taxed an estate tax were most likely small business owners. “More than 70% of family businesses do not survive the second generation; 87% do not make it towards the third generation.” (Frequently Asked Questions about the "Death Tax")

Through the 2000 elections, President Bush was widely known for his proposals to privatize Social Stability. Most of the Democrat’s are against Bush’s proposals to change Social Security, whereas, most Republican’s are for Bush’s proposals to vary Social Protection. In order to locate out whether folks blog here would be better off under the existing Social Protection system or a privatized system, I researched the average returns among the existing system and compared them into the average returns under a private investment or “private account”.