Sunday, March 27, 2011
Does Social Security Need to be Fixed?
The Miami Herald's Sunday, March 27th Opinion Section includes an article titled "Why Social Security Must be Fixed" (see link) in which its author claims that Social Security favors "middle and high earners over less well-off retirees." After reading the article, state why the author makes that claim and state your personal opinion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Delores Hall spc-2050
ReplyDeleteHi if I am understand this right I don't think the liberals should be fighting the social reform because. They would be changing the structural to lower wage people who already paid their debt to social security now they are telling them they need to have made more money they have already retired,and learn how to manage what they have and call it a fix income.Now do lower wage people need more headache I dont think so this could be me.Now I have to worry when I reach social security age will I have enough to survive on. These people who are making these decison don't have to worry they have their retirement set in stone.So they need to focus on other issue that need more attention that's my opinion.
Good afternoon. As I understand this article. I feel that the author has made a valent points,that liberals should back the progessive change to social security. Myself being a recipient of social security due to an injury. I found this article, very informative and full of information I wasn't aware of. In my opinion the main thing is to look out for the low wage earners. The low wage earners were not fortune to contribiute to retirement plans. So as the cost of living rises,their fixed income remains the same. This will in the future cause true problems for the low wage earners. Zabariel Moss, SSG, US Army(RANGER)Retired.
ReplyDeleteRobert Pozen article is mainly about the social security down fall and how to make the program more progressive by improving it's wages and it's benefits. In addition, the guy will have a greater impact on lifetime benefits as the normal retirement edges up to 67 by 2027.
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about paid workers being cut back in social security taxes. The percentage has decreased to almost 85%. Social security benefits are being reduced and benefits are only applied to 59 year olds and younger.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article proposes that the social security program is no longer progressive and that it favors higher income earners. He uses three claims to support this statement. First, he says that high-wage workers live on average more years than low wage workers, therefore they enjoy the social security benefits for longer. Secondly, he explains that the social security taxes on wages have fallen over the past years, therefore making high-wages workers pay less. Finally, the author brings up the fact that the government yearly offers more than $100 billion on tax benefits to those who participate in retirement plans, who happen to be the high-wage earners. I believe that the author raises some solid points in defense of a reform for the social security system, however, the tone of the article strikes me more of an attack on liberals than an attempt to reconcile his point of view with theirs and propose a solution. The facts which he presents might be convincing, however, I do not agree with the approach which he takes.
ReplyDelete