Social Security: Must be Almost Bedtime
This is an issue on which I have no expertise, I probably have nothing interesting to say, and it is really up to Americans anyway.
But then if I never blogged about issues meeting those three criteria (cough)....
I think I'm beginning to understand.
In about 20 years, if nothing changes, Social Security will begin to run a slight deficit, which, if benefits don't change, will have to be made up somehow. Tax hikes (including changes in the contributions at various salary levels) and debt are the main alternative to cutting benefits. None of these changes would have to be drastic--even in 20 years--to keep the program "in the black."
The projected date at which problems like this begin to occur has been continually pushed back by experts. So the problems might not occur even in 20 years.
At any time in the next 20 years, it would quite easy to put off these problems for at least another significant period.
That's why honest defenders of change are now admitting that there is no crisis, and may not be one in the lifetime of anyone now living. Certainly there is no indication the program will be broke, busted, with nothing left for the retirement of an Iowa farmer who is now 25. So someone ... er ... lied.
A separate issue is whether a quite different program would actually be better--more like a retirement plan you manage yourself. There would be a greater potential upside but also (the way such things go) a greater potential downside.
As I recall, one poll shows that young people think Social Security will actually not cover them when they retire, so it will do no harm to make drastic changes. Hmmm... Could it be that they think the boomers will screw up everything important, if they haven't done so already? Could this because of their more general view that boomers are self-centered and think only of their own short-term benefit?
I know, the environment. But as soon as their kids grew up, the boomers started driving SUVs.
|
