Proposals to change Social Stability Benefits

Throughout a lot of elections, we have now listened to proposals from politicians to change or transform Social Security benefits. Within this paper, I’m planning to investigation and analyze these proposals to find out if they might be advantageous into the Social Security fund, how it will have an impact on all of us while in the long run, along with the current beneficiaries who receive Social Security.

“The important issue for Social Safety is, as the populace ages, soon there'll not be enough persons spending Social Stability taxes to supply advantages for each and every retired individual.” (Dilulio & Wilson 486). This is why so many politicians have proposed changes into the existing system. The people in my generation might not see any added benefits when it’s our time to retire. “In 1950, there were 16 workers to support each one beneficiary of Social Security; today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every single Social Stability beneficiary.” (White House). If Social Security stays unchanged at this rate, Social Protection will be spending out more than it takes in. If we ever reach this stage we will be left with two problems, a lot of men and women paying out into the system now will be cut off of Social Security, or the government will borrow more money to pay the beneficiaries, which will increase the national debt.

“Unless otherwise stated, payment levels apply equally to aged, blind, and disabled persons.” (State assistance programs for SSI recipients, 3) I believe that if the Social Protection fund only funded beneficiaries who are aged, we would not have such a low number today of 3.3 workers supporting each and every Social Stability beneficiary. “The Budget Enforcement Act, for example, excluded the receipts and disbursements of Social Protection from the President’s budget as well as congressional budget resolution. Programs that have been excluded like this are called “off-budget”.” (Collender 12)

Robert M. Ball has proposed a plan to change Social Stability while arguing against President Bush’s proposal of private accounts. One thing that Ball has proposed was, “Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all such earnings could be taxed and counted for benefits” (Ball 2). I believe the means of using tax to fix Social Stability will work while in the short run, but not during the long. If we do take this approach, should we gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Safety even more inside the upcoming when Social Stability has gone further into debt? Another proposed improve by Ball was, “An estate tax is a highly progressive way of meeting this cost, and dedicating it to Social Stability would strengthen the contributory.” (Ball 3) Now an estate tax, or sometimes called a “death tax”, is a tax on a person’s estate depending on how much he or she was worth. Again, I see a difficulty with this proposal because Ball is suggesting that we use another means of tax to be paid into Social Protection. I personally think it’s wrong to even have an estate tax because those who are taxed an estate tax were most likely small business owners. “More than 70% of family businesses do not survive the second generation; 87% do not make it to your third generation.” (Frequently Asked Questions about the "Death Tax")

For the duration of the 2000 elections, President Bush was widely known for his proposals to privatize Social Stability. Most of the Democrat’s are against Bush’s proposals to alter Social Stability, whereas, most Republican’s are for Bush’s proposals to change Social Stability. In order to discover out irrespective of whether men and women security services blackburn can be better off under the present Social Security system or a privatized system, I researched the average returns among the present system and compared them for the average returns under a private investment or “private account”.