.
.
“There were originally 16 workers paying into social security to every one retiree.”
Well, yeah, that was true when privatizing 1% of the fund (which most economists argue WOULD’VE improved social security’s solvency) was floated a few years ago.
In short, nothing has changed.
“By 2030 there will be more retirees than workers paying into the program.”
That was true back in 2005 as well, so again, NOTHING has changed.
The Democrats back then, argued that “Social Security didn’t need fixing.”
They DID NOT argue, “Social security needs fixing, but privatization isn’t the right fix.”
So why, a scant thirty months after AARP led the Democrats led the Democrats in the chant of “Social security doesn’t need fixing,” is the same chorus now chanting, “Social security needs fixing NOW!”
Well, because the first Baby-boomer (Kathleen Casey-Kirschling) is ready to sign up for her social security benefits – the first of what is anticipated to be the largest wave of beneficiaries in history. According to the MSM, she’s the “raindrop that’s going to become a tsunami,” one, that many warn, could swamp the program.
Let me agree, first off, that it’s now too late for privatization to save social security. While there’s also no doubt that it WOULD HAVE, that’s water under the bridge. It would still HELP improve the system, but it's doubtful that it would SAVE social security from the coming armegeddon that will be brought on by a far too low retirement age and benefits that are too high to sustain.
The primary problem with today’s social security is that it hasn’t remained true to its original blueprint, that of, as FDR called it, “one leg of a three—legged tool for retirement.”
So if privatization isn’t the answer now, we are left with three choices;
1) DECREASE, or at least FREEZE benefits
2) RAISE the retirement/benefits age
3) Raise Taxes
The first two are very viable options, even basic requirements, the third must be seen as out of the question.
When social security began, life expectancy for American males was about 63 years and social security benefits kicked in at 62 for reduced benefits and 65 for full benefits. Today Americans are living longer and healthier and there’s no question that both the retirement age and the age levels for receiving social security benefits should be raised.
Today’s life expectancy in the U.S. is 77.6 years, by the original blueprint for social security, reduced benefits should kick in at around age 76.5 and full benefits at almost 80 years of age.
In a world where people are living longer and healthier it makes perfect sense to raise the retirement age and keep those folks working and living longer, more productive lives. THAT would be good for ALL of us!
We should also very seriously consider reducing, or at least FREEZING benefits. Those over 65 in America are one of the wealthiest generations ever to live on the face of the earth. Consider that the generation prior to the baby-boomers saved only $30,000 toward retirement, while the boomers have put away, on average, some $140,000! They’ve also benefitted from a stock market that improved from appx. DOW 3,000 in the 1980s to near 14,000 today and they’ve benefitted from a real estate surge that has seen the price of the average boomer’s home now going for $600,000!
So, why not at least FREEZE benefits, as we raise the retirement age?
The one thing we shouldn’t do, MUSTN’T do is raise taxes!
It would be obscene for struggling young people, most of them just starting out in life to be burdened with higher taxes to, in effect, subsidize the already well-heeled lifestyles of a generation that is already far wealthier than they.
We should raise the retirement age, raise the age limits for receiving social security benefits and reduce those benefits to make that program once again solvent.
