At 2/15/13 10:04 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:
i mean, it has some socalism ideals to it, think about it, those people that elderly worked most of their lives and payed lots of taxes to the government (most of them) and now the government is taken care of them. Isn't this kind of like Socalism? if it is, do you think it should be taken away? because people like Mitt Romney's supporters said Obama's socalist views were bad. I am just wondering about your opinion on this.
I lean more towards the opinion that Social Security should be updated, rather than done away with it. If you update it so that it operates the way it was intended to, issues of insolvency will be solved with ease.
You see, Social Security was setup with a minimum requirement age of 65 at a time when the average lifespan was 63. The idea was that you would pay into the system for years and years, but never gain the full benefit from having paid into it. Sure, statistically speaking, you might just live long enough to get the benefits, but the plan was that you would be around long enough to get all that money back. The idea wasn't that the government would fund your retirement, the idea was that you would die, and the money would be kept by the government.
Now, you've got people living well into their 80's and beyond, often times taking more out in monthly benefits than they paid in with their payroll taxes. In order to make this system solvent again, the minimum age for benefits should be readjusted to two years past the average lifespan, so... you would have to be 80 or so before you could get benefits.
After we do that, then we can address the issue of whether or not the system should be dismantled.