Jonathan Kingsbury asked:


http://www.defendingthetruth.com/articles/4808-proposals-change-social-security-benefits.html

During many elections, we have heard proposals from politicians to alter or change Social Security benefits. In this paper, I’m going to research and analyze these proposals to find out whether or not they would be beneficial to the Social Security fund, how it will affect all of us in the future, and the current beneficiaries who receive Social Security.

“The key problem for Social Security is that, as the population ages, soon there will not be enough people paying Social Security taxes to provide benefits for every retired person.” (Dilulio & Wilson 486). This is why so many politicians have proposed changes to the current system. The people in my generation might not see any benefits when it’s our time to retire. “In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security; today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.” (White House). If Social Security stays unchanged at this rate, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. If we ever reach this stage we will be left with two problems, a lot of people paying into the system now will be cut off of Social Security, or the government will borrow more money to pay the beneficiaries, which will increase the national debt.

“Unless otherwise stated, payment levels apply equally to aged, blind, and disabled persons.” (State assistance programs for SSI recipients, 3) I believe that if the Social Security fund only funded beneficiaries who are aged, we would not have such a low number today of 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. “The Budget Enforcement Act, for example, excluded the receipts and disbursements of Social Security from the President’s budget and the congressional budget resolution. Programs that have been excluded like this are called “off-budget”.” (Collender 12)

Robert M. Ball has proposed a plan to alter Social Security while arguing against President Bush’s proposal of private accounts. One thing that Ball has proposed was, “Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all such earnings would be taxed and counted for benefits” (Ball 2). I believe the means of using tax to fix Social Security will work in the short run, but not in the long. If we do take this approach, should we gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security even more in the future when Social Security has gone further into debt? Another proposed change by Ball was, “An estate tax is a highly progressive way of meeting this cost, and dedicating it to Social Security would strengthen the contributory.” (Ball 3) Now an estate tax, or sometimes called a “death tax”, is a tax on a person’s estate depending on how much he or she was worth. Again, I see a problem with this proposal because Ball is suggesting that we use another means of tax to be paid into Social Security. I personally think it’s wrong to even have an estate tax because those who are taxed an estate tax were most likely small business owners. “More than 70% of family businesses do not survive the second generation; 87% do not make it to the third generation.” (Frequently Asked Questions about the “Death Tax”)

During the 2000 elections, President Bush was widely known for his proposals to privatize Social Security. Most of the Democrat’s are against Bush’s proposals to change Social Security, whereas, most Republican’s are for Bush’s proposals to change Social Security. In order to find out whether people would be better off under the current Social Security system or a privatized system, I researched the average returns among the current system and compared them to the average returns under a private investment or “private account”.

Barbara Boxer published a “Social Security to Social Insecurity calculator” (Boxer), that calculates the average return an individual will receive under the current system compared to Bush’s privatization plan. I entered many different salaries and years and at every given circumstance, Bush’s plan resulted in a loss. I found this very disturbing considering the large amounts of research I have done last year on retirement accounts.

Dave Ramsey published a ”Privatizing Social Security calculator” (Ramsey), that calculates the return you could expect depending on the type of fund you choose, your income, and your age. Compared to Barbara Boxer’s calculator, I found this calculator more accurate because you were able to choose a fund that had an average annual return, which is calculated into how much you contribute over a given amount of years. The result from Dave Ramsey’s calculator shows how much you will receive from social security and your private accounts when you retire which resulted in a much higher return than social security.

Last year I took an economics class, which covered a great deal in investing for retirement. Some people who are against Bush’s plan of private accounts state that privatizing social security is too risky for retirement. “For individual investors who have neither the time nor the inclusion to actively monitor a stock or a bong portfolio, mutual funds have an obvious appeal. Just pick a good fund and let the managers do the work for you.” (Groz 105). At the age of 19, I visited Fidelity Investments in Braintree, Massachusetts where I was able to start my own investment portfolio. They showed me many funds that ranged from aggressive growth to conservative growth funds. I then chose a couple of mutual funds that were aggressive growth because I was starting my investing at such a young age. “Many investors draw the inference that they should not invest all their money in a single stock or bond, but rather spread out their investments among a group of securities.” (Groz 106). If private accounts were an option, I would recommend people to diversify their investments into many different funds just to limit risk.

Another benefit from investing in certain types of stocks is the dividends. “Dividends, then, are a dividing up and distribution to shareholders of a portion of the corporation’s earnings.” (Groz 27). With these dividends, you can reinvest them into the stock or fund; “Compounding occurs when you get many (e.g., interest or dividends) from an investment and put it back into the portfolio, letting it grow alongside the original investment.” (Groz 183).

After doing researching and analyzing the proposals offered by many politicians, I feel that privatizing Social Security is not such a bad idea. I feel that privatizing Social Security would give people more control of their money when it comes to saving money for retirement that the government cannot touch. I understand that some people might fear the risks of investing in the stock market, but if someone diversifies and chooses funds that are somewhat conservative, there is a very small risk of having little return. Considering that Social Security today has very little return “Social Security’s inflation-adjusted rate of return is only 1.23 percent for an average household of two 30-year-old earners with children in which each parent made just under $26,000 in 1996.” (Beach), you would be better off putting your money into a savings account earning a return close to 3 percent.

“If someone’s definition of national debt excludes the debt owed to federal entities, they are not accounting for the interest on the debt owed to federal entities.” (Ruoco). Since the government’s national debt has been rising year after year which can be seen on (www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm), why should I trust the government with my retirement money? This is why I support the idea of privatizing Social Security, or at least giving the American people the option to invest in private accounts.

Sources

Orr, Doug. “Social Security Q & A: separating fact from fiction.” Dollars & Sense 259 (May-June 2005): 15(6).

State assistance programs for SSI recipients. Baltimore, Md. : The Branch, 2002 Jan

Ball, Robert P (2005). “Fixing Social Security” The Century Foundation. 5/3/2005 JustFacts.com. 1 Sep 2001. 25 Nov. 2005 .

United States. A blueprint for new beginnings : a responsible budget for America’s priorities. Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O., 2001.

United States. “U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt.” Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual. 25 Nov. 2005 .

White House. “Strengthening Social Security for Future Generations.” Strengthening Social Security. The White House. 25 Nov. 2005 .



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Abhishek Agarwal asked:


The Social Security Act of 1935 is among the primary acts the United States government is imposing. The acts main function is to give a lifetime reward to workers who have retired by the age of 65. That was the time of the Midst of Depression and where programs regarding social security were then based on. Due to the expansion of these programs, the programs are considered to be a leading federal program. The funds for these programs demand almost a quarter of the funds in the federal.

For in a long time now, the payments given by the social security programs were free of tax. This was the setup since for the most part of the grantees life, the grantees were paying for their social security record.

In this case, change has always been a part of our life. Just like for programs in Social Secuirty, it has changed over the years and are still subject to change. Presently, a part of the payments given by the programs is taxable. There was one period where the benefits were almost taxed by 50% and other brackets even reached 85% taxable rate. Various measures were tried and employed in reducing the tax rates of the payments, however majority of them were futile. Due to the changes, it won’t be a surprise if there would come a year where people would pay the benefits of their social security at a very high rate. This could be partly attributed to increasing population. One important setback that is situation reflects is that because of the increasing population, some time in the future many people would become dependent on the social security programs especially the benefits when the time for their retirements comes. The setback could probably be best solved if the tax rates could be lessened by the government. In this way, there’s a higher probability that people would gain more income.

Another possible solution that could be taken as of the moment is to increase the rates of the taxes imposed on present employees. This way could somehow ensure that while there is an increasing population, the entire system would not necessarily fall apart. Presently, employees pay taxes after earning $ 90,000 firstly. The employees are still taxed similarly, since in this way the government is able to increase the cap rather than having the employees pay a higher percentage. In this way, the burden in placed on the higher bracket employees rather than those middle class ones.

One concern arising presently is that the social security and its benefits are now put at risk. There are retirees now enjoying benefits that people in the future would not be able to perhaps enjoy. Currently, it is determined that employees now would be getting 25% less of the benefits that retirees are enjoying presently. However retired grantees are also on the lookout to make sure that even with the booming population, taxes would be reduced so that we could avoid having people living underneath the poverty line.

Those who are currently working and paying for their benefits could be assured that in the long run they would be able to enjoy the benefits they are saving for now with additional savings for that matter. The present situation demands that the government find ways to reduce the taxes so as to avoid the conflict that the benefits enjoyed by the retirees presently would not be the same as to the retirees in the future. The changes could happen given that bad case social security programs are now encountering, it would perhaps be possible for the government to eventually lessen the taxes on these benefits and programs.



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Mary Jean Kuda asked:


Rolling Hills is a city in Los Angeles County bordered by the Rolling Hills Estates to the north and Rancho Palos Verdes on all other sides. As of the recent census, the city population was 1,871. It is the 21st richest place in the United States and fourth for places with a population of at least 1,000.

It is a private, gated city atop the scenic hills of Palos Verdes. Incorporated in 1957, it maintains a ranch character with an enduring respect for the natural surroundings, with no traffic lights, large spaces between houses and wide equestrian paths along streets.

In a rich city like Rolling Hills, Social Security problems will surely arise. When they do, Rolling Hills Social Security lawyers are just standing by to help you with the complex and often frustrating procedure of applying for and obtaining Social Security benefits.

Claims under Social Security may be pursued with or without a representative. However, when filed with a representative, preferably a lawyer, the claimants will definitely have a higher percentage of winning their claims rather than in pursuing it alone.

This is because upon application necessary paper works must be submitted – and if it does not convince the Social Security Administration then the claim will be denied at the onset.

So if you doubt the weight and believability of your paper work for your social security claim take some advice and look for qualified assistance right away.

Denial at the Initial Stage does not deter you from further enforcing your claim. You may file a request for reconsideration. Denial of the request may be expected at this stage. In fact, 80% to 85% of claims for reconsideration are denied.

Denial of the request for reconsideration does not put an end to your claim. You can ask that your case be heard by a Judge. Again, this may be done with or without a representative.

Then again, it is better to go to court with a representative as to do without will expose you from further partiality.

For example, the judge, upon seeing you alone and without any knowledge of court procedure, will not be hesitant to deny your claim.

Undeniably, the role of a Rolling Hills Social Security lawyer in your claim is necessary not only to facilitate a faster claim but also to guide you in navigating through the intricate legal process.

However, this should not be understood to mean that the assistance of a lawyer would surely bring positive results on your claim. Of course, Social Security lawyers are not insurers of your claim’s approval. There are times that even when assisted by a lawyer denial may still result.

Engaging the services of a lawyer in your social security case can surely spell a difference between approval and disapproval of claim for benefits. You will for sure put a good fight when you appear prepared before the administration or judge.

With this in mind, determining the issue of representation and the representative to handle your social security case is not simple task. You must think several times before filing your claim unprepared or unrepresented.

For immediate response to your Social Security concerns, employ the aid of our Rolling Hills lawyers. Just log on to our website and avail our free case evaluation services.



Caffeinated Content

Hans Hasselfors asked:


You should be able to find several indispensable facts about social security tax in the following paragraphs. If there’s at least one fact you didn’t know before, imagine the difference it might make.

Every week that you work, there are taxes deducted from your gross payroll that are distributed to the Social Security Administration, along with other programs administered by the government. Of all the taxes we pay, social security is one of the most beneficial, one of the most watched. Why do we pay social security tax, and what does it potentially mean for all Americans? The following article discusses the social security tax regulations and what we benefit from the mandated deduction.

Social security tax is deducted from our payroll each week in order to cover a portion of our retirement income when we reach age 65, but also a survivor benefit, should we become disabled during the course of our working life, or die as a result of work-in which case the surviving spouse and children would receive a monthly income supplement to help them with their daily expenses.

Each and every day, we are bombarded with statements that want to make us aware of the dire straits our social security system and the gloom and doom picture we face in just a few years. This article examines the information available about our social security system, and asks the questions about its fate and ours.

The social security tax we know and pay today has become a greater chunk of our income with the passing years. And, as if this is not enough, it is the poorest of this nation that pay the most, since there is a cap on the income levels that are subject to the social security tax. Currently, any income above $90,000 isn’t subject to social security tax. This presents a problem for the nations poor and the federal government’s level of social security tax received. As more and more of our population begin to age, there are fewer and fewer based employees to sustain the fueled growth and maintenance of the social security system. Add to this the fact that individuals with wage earnings beyond $90,000 are growing faster than the wage base for employees who remain below the $90,000 level, and you have the makings of a disaster. The latest predictions place the collision date somewhere around 2017. That’s not an extremely distant future, and it certainly will be a problem for the 45-50 year old wage earner.

So what has been proposed to deal with this growing problem? There are currently several proposed solutions to the problem, and all of them, with just a few exceptions point to higher taxation of the wage earners income. It is interesting to note here, that when income tax and social security, Medicare, and the many other “beneficial” programs the government has implemented to aid the general public, we have lost in the area of disposable income. In 1913, when the income tax program was begun, less than 1% of the average individual’s income was taxed. Today, we pay roughly 10% of our income in tax. That’s a staggering rate of growth, when you consider that our income levels have also tremendously increased too. The following paragraphs briefly outline some of the more popular proposals for dealing with the projected shortfall, and the effect it should have on “Joe Citizen”.

The information about social security tax presented here will do one of two things: either it will reinforce what you know about social security tax or it will teach you something new. Both are good outcomes.

Increases in FICA taxes; of course, this is a hard sell in the current climate, but by the time we reach 2017, it might look like a better solution than any of the others.

Increases in normal retirement age (NRA) have already begun, and it looks like it is going to be an ongoing process. As our life expectancy increases, the ability of social security to accommodate greater payouts, and a reduction in the working population continues, extending the NRA on past the age of 70 is a real possibility.

Privatization of social security; although on the surface this looks like a promising solution, it would take a special kind of citizen to intelligently, objectively, and rationally invest their 4% allocation wisely, and truly reap the benefit that social security has previously provided.

Selling bonds or printing money. The US Treasury does have the option to intervene and raise the money to accommodate the excess demand, but you increase the probability of runaway inflation when you begin to pump excess money into the economy.

What is the ultimate solution for this problem? No one really knows, simply because no one can accurately predict long-range models. 20, 30, of even 40 years into the future, accurate predictions are extremely hard to come by.

That’s how things stand right now. Keep in mind that any subject can change over time, so be sure you keep up with the latest social security tax news.



Caffeinated Content