Jacob Santos

I don’t believe Social Security is going to be around when I retire, if I even live that long. No, it isn’t from the right wing Republicans, it is just common sense. From my own personal research on both the sites that oppose it, and support the change, I have concluded that unless there is a major change in the way it works, it won’t last.

Those that Oppose the Change

• Would cost too much to implement the new system.

The truth is that those who are already retired won’t see any change and those who are over 45 now won’t see a change. The young generation now (under 45) will see reduced benefits, if at all. The money that I put into Social Security is not my money, it is the governments with the expressed concern that if I live to see retirement, that they’ll pay me later on. What I’m currently paying isn’t even being added to what will be calculated when I retire. Only the last 15 or 25 years before I retire will be totalled. That means that the payment I’m putting into the system now is going to those who have already retired. I have nothing against that since my Grandmother is one of those people, but I’m probably not even paying her a nanocent of the total she is receiving.

The cost it would take to implement a better system to sustain Social Security would be well worth the one time expense. It is better to pay it now, when there is still a surplus, than to wait a decade or two and then say, “Holy Crap, why wasn’t this done in 2003? It is Bush’s fault.” The more time spent in waiting and debating is going to add to the total cost it would take to implement a better system.

• Say Social Security is guarantee.

Social Security isn’t guaranteed, the government has no obligation to give us a cent. The only reason why they would even do so is that the whole population would revolt. Either by a new party being formed that gave Social Security the right way, or a communist revolution (which would totally suck). It is not in the Constitution that they have to pay any money, it is a bill that could be changed or repealed.

• Increase taxes to put more money into the system to save it.

They can’t do this without it coming out that the reason why taxes was increased to 12.7% (half paid by you and the other half paid by the employer) in the mid 1980s was to save the system and add to the surplus. It would also come out that the past presidents have been using the surplus as their own personal piggy bank to finance their projects. President Bush wasn’t the only one, you can’t spend that much and it was done since Nixon (including former president Bill Clinton). To tell the public that they are going to have to increase the taxes to pay for past spending is going to be meant with an outcry (depending on if the media gets this information out there).

I’m not going to pay for something that I’m not going to see anyway. I’m spending money that I need now for something that I’ll probably never see. I wouldn’t mind so much if they hadn’t spent the money they should have saved and if they don’t touch the money they would get with the tax increase. I doubt either, since there is no policement of the surplus in the Treasury.

• There are still enough children being born to continue to pay into the system when they start working.

This would be all well and good if the money for Social Security wasn’t also used for other social causes. It is used for People with Disablities and for those who can’t afford healthcare. Every child would have to work and more than those who make under the poverty line, who also receive a paycheck from SSI.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?