Aside from all encompassing greed, I've never understood why so many fiscal conservatives have held such animosity toward Social Security. People pay into this system their entire working lives and don't receive all that much back at the end. While I can understand -- though I certainly don't agree with -- their animus toward so-called entitlement programs, Social Security ain't one of those. It is a government-enforced savings plan.
The big drumbeat for the past decade or so is that the Social Security Fund is running out of money and only will be able to sustain full benefits for another 2 or 3 decades. Of course, these same folks rarely mention the two factors -- both of which they have supported -- that have brought us to this point.
First, the fund has been producing a surplus for years. And what has happened to this annual surplus? Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken the excess money to fund war and to make up for the loss of revenue as the result of tax cuts for the egregiously rich. In other words, Presidents and the Congress have been pilfering this money.
As many economists and commentators have pointed out, the fund would be in fairly good shape IF the federal government paid back all the money they have siphoned off. Interestingly enough, this singular option is never discussed by almost every current political leader OR the mainstream media. No, they tell the American public that the Social Security system is broken and begs to be fixed.
The second mechanism utilized to insure the fund isn't as strong as it could be is that a ridiculous top income ceiling has been set. As it now stands, only the first $108,000 in wages are subject to FICA payroll deductions. If this cap was increased to, say, $200,000 or there was no cap at all, the fund would be swimming in surplus money (more for the gov't to siphon off!). But you rarely hear this option discussed by political leaders or the mainstream talking heads.
Finally, there is another salient point to be made as offered by Joe Conason,
The big drumbeat for the past decade or so is that the Social Security Fund is running out of money and only will be able to sustain full benefits for another 2 or 3 decades. Of course, these same folks rarely mention the two factors -- both of which they have supported -- that have brought us to this point.
First, the fund has been producing a surplus for years. And what has happened to this annual surplus? Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken the excess money to fund war and to make up for the loss of revenue as the result of tax cuts for the egregiously rich. In other words, Presidents and the Congress have been pilfering this money.
As many economists and commentators have pointed out, the fund would be in fairly good shape IF the federal government paid back all the money they have siphoned off. Interestingly enough, this singular option is never discussed by almost every current political leader OR the mainstream media. No, they tell the American public that the Social Security system is broken and begs to be fixed.
The second mechanism utilized to insure the fund isn't as strong as it could be is that a ridiculous top income ceiling has been set. As it now stands, only the first $108,000 in wages are subject to FICA payroll deductions. If this cap was increased to, say, $200,000 or there was no cap at all, the fund would be swimming in surplus money (more for the gov't to siphon off!). But you rarely hear this option discussed by political leaders or the mainstream talking heads.
Finally, there is another salient point to be made as offered by Joe Conason,
Let’s remember that Social Security actually provides support at a very modest level. Last year, the average retirement benefit was $1,170 a month, or about $14,000 a year, with the average disabled worker or widow receiving slightly less. (It would be wonderfully educational for the cable talkers and newspaper editorialists to live on that amount for a few months—they would not only lose weight but gain empathy.)As you can see, for all the blather that fills the mainstream media airwaves, our system pales in comparison with most other western industrialized countries! What it boils down to is that our current leaders basically want to wreck a so-so system when they should really be trying to build it up instead.
Remember, too, that despite our status as the largest and most productive economy in the world, Social Security is among the least generous retirement programs among all the developed nations. As a percentage of the average worker’s pre-retirement wages, the benefit has been declining for years and will continue to fall without any further cutbacks.
The check that used to replace 39 percent of work life income will replace only 31 percent by 2031. Compare that with the average wage replacement in the nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — which was roughly 61 percent last year...
I would retire tomorrow except Social Security is a cruel joke. Not quite ready yet. For the past 20 years or more, we have all been encouraged to set up IRAs, participate in 401(k)s, mutual funds, invest etc., all those Wall Street strategies that use your money to bolster their system. (To say nothing of unstable pension funds.) (OMG I sound like you!) The bottom line rubric that you need a million bucks in investments (and hopefully own your own home) to live decently in retirement is sad but true.
ReplyDelete