Miller 1

Seleiya Miller
Meyer
English 12b
9 January, 2015

Social Security is an organization that provides benefits for everyone once

they reach retirement, and for those with disabilities. Although the programs purpose
is to create benefits for all those that are retired or disabled, due to the large number
of baby boomers and the decrease in the NBR lacks the ability to support them, so,
the program is projected to be insolvent as early as 2036. Social Security provides
a vital income to millions of beneficiaries, but is on the road toward
insolvency(Unknown, The Reformer). This is an issue that has been debated
largely, due to the large effect it may have on our future. Social Security is already
operating in the red and faces a long-term deficit of $7.7 trillion. Currently, workers
who can't save enough for retirement must depend on Social Security, but with no
guarantee they won't still sink into poverty(The Heritage Foundation). Years ago,
when Social Security was first proposed and accepted, politicians promised baby
boomers benefits for retirement, and disabilities. Today we are left to face the
consequences of those neglected promises. We cannot leave our children and
grandchildren to solve this problem. We need to face the issues now. The only
question is how. Social Security needs to be reformed, mainly by lifting the retirement

Miller 2

age, not providing retirement to those that can fully sustain themselves, and raising
the FICA tax by a percentage.
The two options that have been debated are privatization versus reform.
Social Security is a successful intergenerational program that has served this
country well.(National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare).
Although Social Security has worked well throughout its course, there are those that
believe that privatizing the program so that the funds could be privately invested
would be the best option. But the prominent argument still lies that, Under Social
Security, people earn the right to participate by working and contributing. The
program was never intended to be an investment program. With broader policy goals
than private retirement plans, its intent is to provide guaranteed income to seniors,
disabled citizens, survivors, and their families. Privatization would severely
undermine this system(NCPSSM). Although keeping the program seems to be the
best option, Social Security is on the path to insolvency, so privatization would be
better than no program at all. Opponents of allowing younger workers to privately
invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through personal accounts have long
pointed to the supposed riskiness of private investment. The volatility of private
capital markets over the past several years, and especially recent declines in the
stock market, have seemed to bolster their argument(Michael D. Tanner). This
means that privatization would be the lesser of two evils. The unstableness of Social
Securitys future compared to the risk of investing. What if we changed and reformed
Social Securities current status, so that it may be solvent for our generation and end
The volatility of private capital markets(Tanner). That would simply be the best

Miller 3

answer, not perfect, but better. This means that if we want Social security to continue
thriving Reform is the answer.
The program is in need of serious change due to the lack of births to support a
large number of retirees retirement benefits. Reform would help get the program
back to its secure state, and ensure that the old program would be adapted to better
fit the current state our society is in. As currently designed, the program has
practically no chance of remaining financially sustainable in the coming decades. It is
therefore incumbent upon todays policymakers to address social securitys fiscal
problems and to ensure the program can provide what its very name promises:
security(Andrew G. Biggs). Reform can change the high-esteemed program into
what it needs to be.
It is alarming that the program is going to be insolvent by 2036. Because of
this there is need for reform in the way Social Security works. One of those needed
reformations is to raise the retirement age to 70 for everyone, instead of gradually
raising it by year of birth. It is acknowledged that some may be in need of earlier
retirement benefits, and there will be options for them. They may be able to apply for
earlier retirement, and it can be accepted or denied by decision of the
organization/government. But for the rest, it is in our best interest to cut benefits until
70. If you retire late, you will get benefits for a shorter period of time but the monthly
amounts will be larger to make up for the months when you did not receive
anything(Social Security Administration). This can save us money to help the
program to keep going longer. Although, some feel that raising the retirement age is
only plausible to those that are not laboring very hard in the workplace, Monique

Miller 4

Morrissey assures that, [Raising the normal retirement age] doesn't directly in any
way affect when people retire; it just reduces how much they get at any given age.
This means that if someone feels they need to retire earlier they can save, and
provide themselves an early retirement if needed. Or, they could apply for an earlier
retirement and receive a reduced amount of benefits. Overall, raising the retirement
age, would help cut on unnecessary benefits, and improve the status of the program.
Another needed reform is restricting benefits. There are many people
receiving benefits that do not need it. There are people with high incomes that can
support themselves in retirement, or can support a disabled child, or disabled family
member. We should not have to add to their supply if they do not need it. The money
could be more useful if applied to someone with medium to low income that can
support their retirement or a disability. There is a need to restrict benefits from those
with high income, simply because it would be unnecessary government spending.
We would do this by means-testing. A means test is a process done to determine
whether an individual or family qualifies for government assistance. This is mainly
decided based on whether the individual or family possesses the means to do
without the government assistance. On the topic of means testing, Viard brings up a
good point saying "[It would be] a penalty on saving, so I think that makes it
economically undesirable. [And] it makes Social Security look like a welfare
program, which is politically unappealing"(Danielle Kurtzleben). But this is
underestimating the power and purpose of Federal Government run programs. If
there is not a need, then why would it be provided. There is nothing wrong with

Miller 5

redistributing the fixed tax to those that are in need of it, while those that prosper may
continue prospering and in turn, provide their own cost of living.
Raising the retirement age, and restricting benefits isnt enough to prevent
Social Security from risk of insolvency, so another proposed reformation is adjusting
the FICA tax. Currently, only the first $106,800 of annual wages are subject to the
payroll tax(Kurtzleben). The best way to increase funds to create larger benefits is
to make a 2 percent flat tax increase. The tax would not be progressive or gradual
because of the fact that those that can provide for themselves wouldnt receive
benefits, so it would be unjust to have them support or benefits without receiving
them. It would mean that people could end up putting a lot more money into the
system but in turn, would receive the same benefits as others with low income, or no
benefits at all.
The Social Security Administration has received a lot of backlash due to the
projection for insolvency in our near future. Its time to stop pushing the blame onto
the administration and the government, and to start pushing for ideas that only the
people who Social Security affects would know the best about. After deliberation of
multiple possibilities to help solve the issue. From Privatization to reform, to
completely doing away with the program. The best answer to our situation is to
reform the program to create the needed stability for our future. Also, underneath that
reform we will adjust the retirement age, create benefit restrictions by means-testing,
and raise the tax to a flat tax for all. With all of these improvements in our program
we can create the best possible way for the government to keep its promises and
provide for the country.

Miller 6

Works Cited
Biggs, Andrew G. "A New Vision for Social Security Publications National Affairs." A
New Vision for Social Security Publications National Affairs. Hertog
Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
"Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget | The Reformer - Interactive Tool."
Social Security Reformer. The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget,
n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
Kurtzleben, Danielle. "5 Ways To Reform Social Security." US News. U.S. News &
World Report, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
"Social Security Reform: True Insurance for Seniors and Retirees." Saving the
American Dream. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
"Social Security." Retirement Planner: Benefits By Year Of Birth. Social Security
Administration, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
Tanner, Michael D. "Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security." Cato
Institute. Cato Institute, 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.
"The Truth About Social Security and Privatization." NCPSSM. National Committee
To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2015.