subject: Solutions For Social Security? [print this page] In less than three decades, federal deficits will result in the inadequate funding of the Social Security system, which will decrease benefits significantly for workers who will retire after 2037. The future will be even worse, experts state, should the calls against reform be put in legislation by lawmakers today. What's disorienting is that the retirees who will be affected if this happens don't come from an anonymous or obscure demographic - they are present-day workers who are building their careers, raising families, and contributing to the retirement system. As such, the coalition Strengthen Social Security seems to be against what its very name states - the stabilization of the US retirement system through proposed reforms that will ensure ample funds to give future retirees their scheduled benefits in full.
There are no quick and easy ways to change the impending downfall of the broken government run retirement program. Its own administration says that it's likely for permanent budget deficits to begin in five years. In light of this and their statements, how does the Strengthen Social Security group plan to resolve the situation and steer the system away from guaranteed 22% cuts in benefits for its participants? The only thing the coalition has that approaches this problem is a "Social Security Works" statement, which proposes that Congress act within the coming years, not by directly reducing deficits through a system overhaul, but by requiring those capable to pay more through higher taxes.
If taxes are raised to cover the future deficit, the problem won't go away. Social Security administrators have come up with figures showing that even the most discussed tax increases (which will include all earnings up to $160,000 subject to payroll taxes) will only postpone the beginning of yearly deficits up to 2019, and delay guaranteed benefits cuts in 2048 rather than nine years earlier. This makes the coalition's rhetoric useless - real solutions, rather than weak arguments, are needed to stop automatic cuts to retirement benefits in the future.
