Social Security Rant

As the Baby Boomer Generation continue to get older, one of the hot topics will continue to be Social Security. Critics claim that Social Security is going bankrupt, and must be privatized soon, or people will lose their benefits. This rant examines if Social Security should be privatized, and if it is actually being broken.

With the different search engines, and thanks to the information superhighway, there are much data to suggest that Social Security, even going to speed will be able to pay full benefits until at least 2032, and Some research indicates that Could survive as long as 2042. In addition, seventy percent of the funding comes from Social Security payroll taxes, which guarantees social security will never go broke. The trick is in about thirty or forty years to develop a system to recover the other 25 percent. Who likes to crunch numbers, and those who are familiar with the mathematical formula claim that a raise in payroll taxes by two percent-one percent by the employer and one percent for the employee will Guarantee the survival of Social Security until the Second Coming. Analysts point out that a tax increase, no matter how small can or can not be, is not the only solution. With the advancement of technology and medical science, people are living longer than ever before. Moreover, different amounts of disease has been tamed. Nearly ninety years ago, the number one killer in the world was Spanish Influenza. Today, the influence is no longer a serious threat. In addition, polio was a scourge to society, but these days, the disease was virtually eradicated from the face of the planet. So it is logical that the retirement age will-and should-be extended to about 70. In fact, seventy years of age is not old. In fact, the average age in this country, and well below average in many industrialized nations of the world.

Of course, arguing that Social Security is under-funded is not telling the whole story. Look at the facts. So far in this war on terrorism, the U.S. has spent over 300 billion dollars. If this amount is divided by the present population, which equates to about a thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the country. Also do not forget the hundreds of millions of dollars that "loaned" to other countries in the world. Instead of saying, "Social Security is going broke because of the population," the statement should be correct, "the president believes that there are more important things to spend money for a possible Than assure that benefits will be around for years to come. "

Whenever Social Security Reform is mentioned, there are always few who love to clamor that the system should be privatized. Statistically we know that people spend more than they save. If Social Security should be privatized, what about the millions of people without a bank account? If these people automatically get an account? And who is going to make these people get an account - The Federal Government? This would defeat the purpose of privatizing Social Security first. It 's a bit like saying: "Let's fix our brakes so we can take the car to the mechanic so he can fix the brakes."

I could do a lot of research and list a lot of data and list a lot of references, or I could use the history and common sense to demonstrate that social security should never be placed in the hands of a private entity. It 'true that there have been many government scandals that have cost the taxpayer billions throughout the history of this country. The failure of savings and loans is an example, and the list is quite long. Also, there have been many scandals in the private sphere that has swept away the life savings of countless people. Enron is just one example in a list which I am sure it is exhaustive. So, the conclusion is that history shows that it government bureaucracy is safer than the private sphere, then leave Social Security alone.