It is inevitable that we, citizens of the United States need to change our current methods of financing our social programs. Historically Medicare and Social Security funding has been frequently relegated to finance other government programs, estimating from the proportion of the tax money distribution. From the Whitehouse.gov website we are shown that ordinary taxpayers with $25,000 income split their tax dollars between Medicare and Social Security among other programs. These departments roughly split the ratio 1:1. Social Security received $1,550.00, Medicare received $263.00, and then Income tax at $1,683.00 was split up into 14 additional sectors including Health care, National Defense, International Affairs, Education, and Agriculture among others. Obviously, this estimation is approximate for the low-income taxpayers, but is applicable to the majority of US citizens. Higher paid individuals will contribute a higher percentage towards other government programs along with Medicare and Social Security. Nevertheless, it is evident that the majority of the tax dollars from ordinary citizens goes to finance Medicare and Social Security programs.
Despite the fact that the allocations of tax dollars into Medicare and Social Security programs have been dramatically reduced over several years, the proportion of government spending into both programs still remains. A majority of the government’s budget presents a challenge to the government fiscal policy reforms that create various problems to the US economy and may present many opportunity costs to our country. First, and probably the most obvious, is the Medicare program to senior citizens. As US Census Bureau estimates, we will have two retirees for every one worker by 2025. Tha...
... middle of paper ...
...efits until the year 2037. By paying off money that was essentially pulled away from the Social Security trust, we will be able to repair the current deficit. Unfortunately, this approach leads us to the opportunity cost of cutting funding in other segments that are vital to the prosperity of the country and young generations. The alternative approach is to increase the funds in Medicare and Social Security is to raise income taxes. This approach would quickly eliminate the deficit; however the opportunity cost would be great. Citizens would have less money to spend which will result in depressed economy, and an increased tax rate would cause most to political and economic reforms.
In my opinion, most Americans will agree that the best course of action is to cut funding in the International Affairs program, until we are able to stabilize our own country’s economy.
There are millions of Americans affected by social security. These Americans rely on social security to provide them with financial security. Recently President Bush agreed to proposing a method of privatizing the social security program so that in the future the vast reserves of the social security system would not run out nearly as fast. With the always increasing rise in inflation, and the baby boomer generation reaching ages of retirement fairly soon, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with correctly and rapidly. The way the president is handling the situation is definitely the right way to do it. There are many things and ways in which to do it wrong, but the president seems to be pointing the plans of social security in the right direction. The president’s plans of reforming social security are right because the privatization is the best way to go, changing the rules for those who would apply for it increases the savings and makes the money go farther, and working with the distribution of different tax percentages would really make the money go a lot farther.
Throughout the 20th century governmental responsibility has made remarkable progress. One major milestone of the widening of the responsibility of the federal government was it’s making an obligation to care for the elderly and retired in the form of social security. In 1935, the Social Security Act was enacted by the federal government to provide financial security to the elderly, retired citizens in America. Although the federal government first took on this responsibility in 1935, it is still affecting our lives today. However, social security would not have advanced this far without many organizations and individual reformers to begin and improve social security throughout history.
For decades, one of the many externalities that the government is trying to solve is the rising costs of healthcare. "Rising healthcare costs have hurt American competitiveness, forced too many families into bankruptcy to get their families the care they need, and driven up our nation's long-term deficit" ("Deficit-Reducing Healthcare Reform," 2014). The United States national government plays a major role in organizing, overseeing, financing, and more so than ever delivering health care (Jaffe, 2009). Though the government does not provide healthcare directly, it serves as a financing agent for publicly funded healthcare programs through the taxation of citizens. The total share of the national publicly funded health spending by various governments amounts to 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, GDP (Jaffe, 2009). By 2019, government spending on Medicare and Medicaid is expected to rise to 6 percent and 12 percent by 2050 (Jaffe, 2009). The percentages, documented from the Health Policy Brief (2009) by Jaffe, are from Medicare and Medicaid alone. The rapid rates are not due to increase of enrollment but growth in per capita costs for providing healthcare, especially via Medicare.
Stephen C. Goss has extensively written about the future financial status of the social security program for the Americans and for the whole world at large. He patently articulates that changes enacted in 1983 on Social Security are expected to bring dynamic revolution, such that the benefits and other compensations would be paid in full and on a timely basis until 2037. In 2037, trust fund reserves are expected to be virtually exhausted. After the reserves are used, continuing taxes will be vastly relied upon to pay 76% of the benefits. There will be need and the necessity for the Congress to deliberate on changes concerning the program. It is estimated that reduction of benefits by 13% or a sudden increase in payroll tax to 14.4% from 12.4% or a combination of these two strategies will lead to full payment of scheduled benefits for the next 75 years. In the article, Stephen Goss explicitly analyzes the financial state of the Social Security program. He fundamentally analyzes the aspects of solvency and sustainability. It also evaluates the effect of the social program on the federal budget. It is apparent that social benefits that Americans deserve will continue in the future with certain adjustments to be implemented by the congress and by the legislative bodies.
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
Today, the future of Social Security is in the news again. The reason Social Security is of such concern is that the extremely large group of citizens born in the post-World War II period—the much-discussed baby-boom generation—is retiring. The generation that will take its place in the workforce is far smaller in proportion to the number of retirees, raising fears about the sustainability of Social Security. In the past, proposed solutions to the various problems facing Social Security aroused great debate. Each time, however, the arguments were stilled, repairs were made, and the system continued to fulfill its mandate. That uncertainty about the future has resulted in suggestions for change that range from minor adjustments to complete privatization of the ...
Krugman points out how despite the obvious and ever growing gap between the rich and middle class in terms of wealth increase, Republicans tend to vote for tax cuts for the rich and for decreases in funding for programs that benefit the middle and lower classes of society, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cutting funds for these services puts the middle and lower classes at even more of a disadvantage than they already were. Meanwhile, the rich receiving more tax cuts means they receive more money, furthering the economic wealth gap and increasing the money they can spend to influence politics. Krugman suggests the solution to the problem is increasing taxes on the
Polsky, D. (2009, June). The health effects of medicare for the near-elderly uninsured.. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=a55fa2f1-dfd5-41b9-a739-d67a1b9ba856%40sessionmgr114&vid=3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=39772605
Social Security has played a major role in supporting the elderly as well as sick and disabled financially for many years. However, we do not know how long this will last their are many problems facing social security and the funding of it with the population continuing to grow more and more people are taking advantage of social security. The main problem is people who do not really need the help and free income of social security abusing it making the government actually spend more than they actually putting into the social security fund. In this paper I will not only discuss the problems surrounding social security but also solutions in which could not only help better social security but also make it available for generations to come.
Medicare has been providing health insurance to people since the signing of the social security act in 1965. Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson as an amendment to the social security legislature, Medicare became one of the biggest health programs to help people aged 65 and over and to those 65 and under with disabilities. The program has helped these people significantly with their health requirements. Today our economy is under financial stress having a debt accumulation of around 54 trillion dollars, eighty trillion being Medicare liability alone. This debt effects Medicare beneficiaries financial funding, this is bad for many people who have a poverty level income. Now the only way we can accommodate these cuts in Medicare is by paying out of our pockets. The younger generation has a duty to the elderly and our disabled brothers. Although it seems unfair for us to pay for Medicare, it is up to us to keep the program going for these people.
The two major components of Medicare, the Hospital Insurance Program (Part A of Medicare) and the supplementary Medical Insurance program (Part B) may be exhausted by the year 2025, another sad fact of the Medicare situation at hand (“Medicare’s Future”). The burden brought about by the unfair dealings of HMO’s is having an adverse affect on the Medicare system. With the incredibly large burden brought about by the large amount of patients that Medicare is handed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to fund the system in the way that is necessary for it to function effectively. Most elderly people over the age of 65 are eligible for Medicare, but for a quite disturbing reason they are not able to reap the benefits of the taxes they have paid. Medicare is a national health plan covering 40 mi...
In the United States, there are more than thousands of Americans who do not have the means to support themselves, hence they seek government benefits. Also, many people cannot afford proper insurance. For the Americans who are on public assistance, one of the biggest forms of assistance that the government offers is Medicare. Medicare is one of the many matters that are controversial ...
Thirdly I noticed that government effects how much money is deducted out of the paycheck I receive at work. The government deducts money for many different programs. One of those is the social security program. The social security program is made up of money deducted from everyone's pay this money is distributed when the employee becomes disabled, retires, or passes away. The money is there to protect the worker and their families if that person is no longer able to work. The government also takes money out of my pay for Medicare, Medicare is a program that provides medical care for people that can not afford it. There is also a federal income tax that is deducted and used for a various assortment of programs from road paving to bridge building and many other public needs.
In November of 2004, the United States ran a fifty-four billion dollar trade deficit, translating to over 600 billion for the entire year. This deficit is a result of the disparity between the amount of goods that the US imports and the amount it exports. To equalize this deficit in its current account, the American government sells assets from its capital account, often to foreign investors. This phenomenon is seen as a serious threat to the success and continued growth of the nation’s economy, tied in with popular concerns that the United States is losing its competitive and dominant edge in global economics. The traditional economic theory employed to solve this problem calls for a return to mercantile protectionism, through use of tariffs and subsidies to drive up the price of imports and lower the price of exports. Running contrary to this is a second option: increasing domestic savings and lowering government spending. These theories both aim to decrease American dependence upon foreign imports and investment, and ultimately equalize the enormous trade deficit that currently exists.
The Charity Organization Society was based in the scientific movement of organizations. Workers believed that charity work needed more definition and organization and that charity should be focused more on individual need rather than as a whole population. Focusing on individual need was intended to improve relief operations while making resources more efficient. They also intended to eliminate public outdoor relief. With the promotion of more organization and efficiency the new Charity Organization Societies were born. Trattner states that these new requirements for organization and efficiency spread so “rapidly that within 6 years 25 cities had such organizations and by the turn of the century there were some 138 of them in existence” (Trattner, 1999).