Last year, annual Social Security outlays exceeded annual revenues for the first time since 1983. The Congressional Budget Office projects that outlays will be roughly 5% greater than revenues over the next five years, worsening as more and more Baby Boomers retire.
There's an obvious question about this program - why does it have to be subject to gun point coercion? What is the compelling interest that makes it right to force people to participate? Wouldn't it at least make more sense, if we are going to force people to give up their money "for their own good", to give them options about how to "invest" that money?
As it stands now, social security is worse than a ponzi scheme. At least you can choose whether or not to participate in a Madoff like "too good to be true" investment. It is nearly impossible to achieve that outcome for social security. Where's the outrage? The poor who benefit - thank goodness they do, but to see only that is to see only part of the situation. What about all the folks who pay in but die before they get all or even part of their money back - and their heirs get nothing, unless they are young children. What about the disability benefit - does anyone question that a better benefit could be had in a non-coercive system? What about the fact that the poor, who need the program the most, die young and therefore don't get the intended benefit?
Regardless of the intent, this program is wrong in design, morality and effect - it hurts more than it helps, and it will be part of the death spiral until fixed.
By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented. Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-11/Rick-Perry-Social-Security/50362610/1There's an obvious question about this program - why does it have to be subject to gun point coercion? What is the compelling interest that makes it right to force people to participate? Wouldn't it at least make more sense, if we are going to force people to give up their money "for their own good", to give them options about how to "invest" that money?
As it stands now, social security is worse than a ponzi scheme. At least you can choose whether or not to participate in a Madoff like "too good to be true" investment. It is nearly impossible to achieve that outcome for social security. Where's the outrage? The poor who benefit - thank goodness they do, but to see only that is to see only part of the situation. What about all the folks who pay in but die before they get all or even part of their money back - and their heirs get nothing, unless they are young children. What about the disability benefit - does anyone question that a better benefit could be had in a non-coercive system? What about the fact that the poor, who need the program the most, die young and therefore don't get the intended benefit?
Regardless of the intent, this program is wrong in design, morality and effect - it hurts more than it helps, and it will be part of the death spiral until fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment