Quote:
| But according to government figures, "while Social Security takes in more than it spends right now, the situation reverses when the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) begins to retire in 2010. Unless the system is overhauled, Social Security by 2013 will be spending more than it collects in taxes and will be broke by 2032." |
Well, that's utter crap. First, consider the fact that the boomers will start dying en masse in the 20s. Second, the fact you quoted is simply wrong; the most pessimstic view of SS places the bankruptcy date close to where you say it is (in 2037, IIRC), but the expected year, given that 4529056.5 variables that are largely unknown stay the same, is closer to the 2070s.
Anyway, there are some things I don't see what the point in them is in SS, which is why I pretty much oppose it:
- Why the hell does the government need two different budgets, when having one is more efficient, more flexible, better for the debt (as the period in which SS is in surplus comes before the period in which it'll be in deficit), and based on a more sensible tax?
- Why the hell does the government need to distribute social security to people who can live on their own? It's like giving welfare to the middle-class.
So, I say, scuttle it, and replace it with need-based aid, like with welfare. If you're 30 and concerned about things now, invest in a savings program, and the government will even ensure it for you in case the bank goes bankrupt.