But how many burdens should be put on the young and middle age individuals, whose taxes basically pay for government retirement ... ... middle of paper ... ...s for generations to come, which in essence, needs to start now. Using a conservative economic projection should be one of the steps taken for the growth of future social security. We all know there are no free rides in life; someone is always taking the bill, much less in social security. Any of the changes discussed in this report would impose a real alteration in the level of benefits, taxation and risks. Ultimately, we need to look forward with complete understanding and full acceptance of changes, while keeping faith in a system, which has served us so well.
This plan would eliminate the risk of losing payroll tax money because only budget surplus revenue would be invested. Many who oppose The President's plan have lived through the Great Depression, one of the bleakest times in American history. While the Great Depression was triggered ... ... middle of paper ... ... belongs to us, the people. Therefore the government, which holds the key to Social Security and in essence, our future, needs to adjust the system to the needs of it's beneficiaries. Don't cut benefits, as many Americans rely on Social Security for a large portion of their income.
Recommendations On average the United States spends $529 billion on foreign affairs that will never be able to return the money to the US government. Thus, it falls into the lost money category. If the government were to stop sending meaningless money in outlying areas that have no capital to return, the debt will be greatly reduced. Many of the solutions stated above are possible, but it is our recommendation that the U.S. government stop spending money overseas first. The country may still need to look into other solutions afterwards, but we believe this is a crucial first step to reducing the national deficit.
If we were able to take the mortgage out of the picture and make homes rent able and one day own able to the people that stay throughout the long term renting of the homes. This is a great way even for the government to hold property, but not forever. For the government to turn over the homes really give incentives for people to stay in the home and to continue to pay the rent for the home until the rent accumulate to the payoff of the purchase price. This way the government will have to market power to jump start the financial market and get everyone spending and investing for a better future. In the end, everyone wins and money will not be a issue in this foreclosure crisis.
If they were to decide on a cheaper home that would mean a smaller mortgage and less they owe someone else. The sooner a person can get out of debt the better because you never know what is going to happen. Like I mentioned earlier, accidents and identity theft happen all the time and you never know if or when they are going to happen to you. Nothing is worse than being in debt and not having a source of income. The government has set up programs such as HUD homes for families that are less fortunate than others.
Nor will they be soothed by economists’ armchair arguments that the government’s roughly $80-billion-a-year tax subsidy to owner-occupied housing has led to a vast overbuilding of the nation’s housing stock. Roger E. Brinner, DRI’s chief economist, figures the plunge in housing value would wipe out more than $1.5 trillion of householder’s net worth. The collapse of the housing market and new home construction, Brinner predicts, would slice 1.2 percent off GDP the year after the flat tax passed, and 1.6 percent in the second year. (Dishman 39) A potentially troublesome law lurks in the flat tax plan of House Majority Leader Richard Armey. The Armey flat tax plans to eliminate business exemption for most fringe benefits, especially employer paid health care.
Employers and workers finance the program through payroll taxes. “Participation in the social security system is required for about 95 percent of all U.S. workers.” There are four main points why social security is going to fail and ruin it for the generation to come. A better way to measure the financial trouble facing Social Security is to compare the promised total future benefits to the program 's total future taxes on a present value basis. Unless policymakers cut Social Security and other programs, the fiscal and economic outlook for the nation looks grim. The large baby boomer generation is beginning to retire in droves and average life spans in the nation are continuing to rise.
This program will only have an opportunity cost, as a taxpayer may not receive any more assistance than they paid in taxes the pervious year, thus they can only receive benefit equal to their contribution. While this means their tax money cannot be spent elsewhere it does benefit everyone in the long run, by decreasing foreclosure rates, and therefore steadying housing prices.
The system is designed so that private companies are not able to take advantage of customers and opening a wider range of choices to choose from. Keeping costs down and premiums low helps avoid the problem of losing customers. Public option is take on full effect by the end of 2013 and it will be a self-sustaining program that is able to run without government subsidies. Funds will come from the administrative cost that the subscribers pay on their premiums. As of right now, the government has provided two billion dollars to start up the program and should whatever reason the programs goes bankrupt, the house bill will ban a bailout.
Some people believe that by reforming the program and increasing Social Security taxes it can be saved, but we disagree. Our position on the issue is that the Social Security trust fund will run dry by 2036 (Wolf, 2011). Baby boomers are set to retire, which will significantly reduce the ratio of employed workers to retired individuals. To compound the previous issue, these retired individuals are living longer, and their cost of living is increasing. These facts, paired with many others, have led us to believe Social Security will not last into the 21st century.