Is this a good plan to fix Social Security?
I have no problem with the government funding Social Security for those who truly need it. What I do have a problem with is stealing the hard-earned money of young workers to pay for the retirement of someone else. I consider an inalienable right for us to be allowed to keep the fruits of our labor and do whatever we want with it and I find it morally wrong for the government to forcibly take what we earned and give it to another without our permission. If the government funded Social Security by legalizing and taxing marijuana, by ending foreign aid, by closing our military bases, by bringing our troops home from all the wars, by abolishing federal agencies (Dept.of Education, the FDA, the EPA, the DHS, etc.,) or by ending farm subsidies and all forms of corporate welfare, I would be fine with that. But, whatever revenue the government uses to fund Social Security, it must NOT come from the earnings of its citizens. Most importantly, Social Security must be strictly voluntary and people should be free to control their own retirement if they so choose. Is this a good idea?
Summertime: People should get Social Security because they need it and are unable to work when they're old. Not because they paid into it.
- 8 years ago
Actually, those who receive Social Security paid into it over all the years that they worked. The problem is that Congress borrowed all the money from the so-called Social Security trust fund and used it for other things.
Social Security should not be voluntary. People need to plan for their own retirement anyway as Social Security is only part of the income a person needs to retire. Also, Social Security is a good base for everyone, and most of those who choose to opt out in their youth will regret it if the become disabled or when they grow old.
Social Security is not just for old people. Social Security also covers people with chronic disabilities who cannot work and covers the families of workers who die.Source(s): www.ss.gov
- . SmithLv 78 years ago
7 cents out of every dollar you earn.that's not a big deal.the people on ss paid that their whole life.the government pays 0.the fund is supported by a payroll tax.you make a small contribution and the employer matches that.the program is solid until 2035.some very miner changes will make it solid into the next century.you will be affected if your payroll for the year exceeds 106,000.00,if not you will not see an increase in the amount taken from your check.7 cents per dollar7 dollars per 1 hundred,70 on 1000,and this money is for your grandmother,your parents and you.the republicans would have you believe that ss contributes to the national debt.they are lying.not one cent.it is a self sustaining program,and people who receive benefits spend the money on goods and services,thus helping the economy.if you let people chose it won't work and many people will not prepare,thus need welfare.
- 8 years ago
Social security was paid for by 40 years of taxes. They don't ask if you need it or not they take your money. They claim they will give it back, but they are busy spending it before you can lay claim to it.
You (if you are young) are not funding the old people, you are funding the theft that the government perpetrated on the fund over the past 4 decades.
- SarahLv 78 years ago
Or we could just raise the social security tax cap. That would make it solvent forever.....without eliminating vitally necessary programs.
I would be fine with a phase out of the current system to a similar system where our money was kept in an interest bearing account for US to use, an account that couldn't be accessed until we retired. I disagree with the "voluntary" idea....because millions of people would choose to opt out and then wouldn't have anything at retirement......leaving everyone else to pay for their care.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Tom TommyLv 48 years ago
The people of the U.S. have decided that Social Security it necessary because the nation existed without it and a huge amount of people were starving and freezing to death once they became elderly. Churches, civic organizations, and charities were unable to handle the situation. That being said Social Security is already strictly voluntary; if you don't agree with the law you are allowed to leave and go to a place where it does not exist.
The argument about using force is a false argument, and is exclusively used by morons. There is a law in place requiring Social Security to be funded through contributions by members of society. If you disagree with this and don't pay you are breaking a law. Generally you are tried, found guilty and fined a specific amount depending on the level of your infraction. If you refuse to pay the fine, or are unable to pay the fine the court can take money away from you in the form of liens on property, or forfeitures. The only time violence comes into it is if you repeatedly refuse to follow the law. You would have to refuse to obey the law by not paying your S.S. taxes, refuse to follow the law by not paying your fine, and refuse to follow the law by disobeying the police when they came to arrest you. At this point there might be violence because you are refusing arrest and putting the police in a dangerous situation, but at no time are you under the threat of violence to make you pay taxes. To argue this is idiotic at best, and borderline retarded at worst.
As for your original question about what to do to fix Social Security the answer is simple. Remove the ceiling on what people contribute. So a rich person, instead of only having to contribute money up to a certain level of income, and then being exempt for the rest of their income simply pays Social Security taxes on all of their income like the majority of people in the country. That alone would solve the problem.
Even without that the program will pay out 100% of obligations for almost the next 30 years, and about 70% of obligations into the foreseeable future after that with absolutely no changes. If I could show you 1 private company that was guaranteed to be able to provide this security for over 30 years you would be pointing to it as the greatest example of free market triumph in the history of the world.
- KevinLv 68 years ago
Raise the retirement age for people under 50 years old now.. If the majority of human population of a country can live up to 100 years without any harm, there is no reason why we can't raise it from 60 to 65.
If the human population can live up to 150 years old, which is possible in a couple of thousands of years, 75 years old is MIDDLE-Age. thus the retirement age is at like 90-100.
- Anonymous8 years ago
News flash. If they are getting social security then they must have worked and paid into it. So i don't get what you're saying. Neither do you. I wont lie i didn't read it all. I reached a point and decided where you were headed. I was right. No its not a good idea.
EDIT: Like i said you don't know what you're talking about. Who do you think is getting the S.S.? You're not making any sense ma'am.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Are you suggesting that little old ladies in their 80s should get out and work cause "they're stealing money from young rich people."
Edit: Taxing people for a program like this is taking their money and putting it into something they can get something out of. Like, you pay taxes for Social security so when you get old you can also go on that program. You put something in, you get something out.
- Shin NoharaLv 68 years ago
I can tell that you are a young, probably in high school, middle-class, white, female from the north or west... because your ideas are really dumb and naive; it is clear that you only care about the marajuwana part and have no idea about how dangerious the world really is.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Without reading the body of your post....
FDR creating something that cannot be reversed easily....
If people like Obama remain in charge it will be Very Difficult..
We need to change paths.. Romney is not a solution.....
Newt can and will destroy Obama... I have looked at all possible outcomes...