All we seem to hear lately is that "unless we raise the retirement age, Social Security will be bankrupt..." And those advancing that position make it seem as though this is going to occur next week.
It's not. Not even close.
First of all, let's define what "Social Security" includes. One type pays "DI," which is Disability Insurance. The second type, which affects more people, is retirement benefits-- "OASI" or Old Age Survivors Insurance
Both of these Social Security programs are extremely solvent today, although the DI program will run out of money in 2018.
The Old Age Survivors Insurance program (i.e., grandma's monthly Social Security Check) is guaranteed to be paid, even with all of the Baby Boomers coming into the system, until 2040-- at its current funding levels-- without raising the retirement age, and without raising additional taxes. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Why the perceived panic? Could it be because people will ask fewer questions if they think there is an immediate crisis? Remember the TARP bailout? It was done virtually overnight with few questions asked because we were told the world was on the brink of a financial collapse.
Hey, it worked for TARP, why not try it for Social Security?
Why are the only solutions discussed in the media the ones that involve either a delay in paying benefits or a reduction in the amount of benefits? Why are those things the only components of solvency that are ever discussed?
In my view, it is because the people who hate social programs want to see them end, and just don't want to admit it for political purposes. So, they talk about how we can't afford them and negatively label them as "entitlements."
These are social programs, folks. They were passed at a time in our nation's history when the elderly were the poorest among our citizens. Perhaps then, there was more respect for our elders, or more respect for our fellow citizens. Ask yourself---Is it a good societal goal, to make the elderly the poorest among us?
I think we need to look at the substance of these social programs. When you get right down to it, isn't Social Security really "money paid to my grandmother after she was a contributing member of society, so that she can live the remainder of her days with some quality of life and dignity?"
Yes, I admit it. I am a "socialist." I have compassion for other people. I believe in the value of Social Security. If we really want to be "the greatest nation on earth, then there are some things that we simply must do, out of human decency, for other people who live with us and contribute to our country throughout their lives.
Social Security is a valued part of our society--or at least it used to be, before we all became so damn greedy.
So, here's my solution to make the Social Security "flush" forever. It's simple, really. Just get rid of the artificially set cap on the Social Security tax.
Right now, there is deducted from an employee's earned income, a tax equal to 6.2% of his or her earnings up to $106,800. Employers have to match that 6.2% tax payment, up to that cap of $106,800.
Above $106,800, there is zero Social Security tax collected on anyone's income.
So, if, for example, New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez makes $32 Million dollars per year, he pays the same amount into Social Security as someone in the Yankees' front office who makes $106,800.
Sen. Mitch McConnell might argue that Alex "already pays enough in taxes" and shouldn't have to pay any more into the Social Security system.
I say that Alex is able to make his salary as a result of all of the fans who pay to see him play, or who buy products advertised on television so that the Yankees' are able to demand a huge TV contract with which to pay Alex's enormous salary.
Isn't Alex just a beneficiary of that "socialistic" ticket purchasing system where we all pull together to raise money for Alex. Shouldn't he "give something back" to the throngs who have put him in this position to earn so much? (And, really, how much money can Alex spend on himself, anyway?) Let's get real. Real compassionate.
After all, shouldn't grandma be able to go to a matinee game when she's 65, without having to skip work or call in sick and tired? And shouldn't grandma have enough disposable income to be able to put some back into commerce to buy a ticket to watch Alex play? Don't you think she's entitled to want that? Isn't that also part of the "American Dream?"
Why the $106,800 cap? It has been raised before. (Ask Congress--they set it.)
There is no cap on Medicare taxes. Congress removed it in 1994.
Don't let raising the retirment age and cutting benefits be the only options that are discussed in this debate. Don't let them rush to make changes.
Don't let Rush or Glen Beck tell you that the answer is to raise the retirement age. Tell them you want them to pay more for the little guy.
Class warfare you say? Nope, I'm just looking out for Grandma.
The sky isn't falling on these programs because, you see, they are self-funded from specific payroll taxes that are paid to a Social Security Trust fund. These funds aren't being used to pay for Wars or tax subsidies to oil companies. We use other tax dollars for those things.
Don't let anyone tell you that we have to change Social Security in a hurry, and don't let them tell you that the only thing that is viable is to make Grandma work until she is older. It simply isn't true or fair.
We are broke as a country--that I do not dispute at all.
But fixing the National Debt problem needs to involve cutting spending on other things and raising revenues--yes, we are going to have to raise taxes. But for me, the answer is not balancing the budget on the back of Grandma.
She's entitled to better treatment than that!
She raised your mother better than that!
No comments:
Post a Comment