The logo of the American Social Security Administration is observed outside a social security building, … more
Let’s start with the obvious, now and in future social security payments are not distant. It is said here and again, but the percentages that say once again that the safest sign that today’s and future social security payments (including Cola increases) are safe and sound is the certain lack of “lock” or “Trust Fund”.
In the past, social security collections that are not sent to retirees were foreseen predictably by politicians who exist to spend. In the future, shortcomings in social security collections in relation to expenditure will be paid by general revenue flowing to the Ministry of Finance.
That is why the reform of social security, reduced benefits or delayed retirement age promoted by various social security alarms and stairs would be such a bad idea. Yes, you are reading this right. The reform of social security would be a terrible idea precisely because it would lead to a larger government. Strange; Not really. Stop and think about it.
Thinking about it, let’s be clear that social security, such as Medicare, was a bad idea itself. Really bad. The idea that we need or need the government to secure retirement in a world and nation dense with all the financial services companies that want to put our savings to work to seek the retirement of nesting eggs are stupid. Just think about how bigger all our retirements would be if the US Treasury was not the recipient of our earnings every salary, so as not to mention the equal amount of our employers.
Still, if there is a positive on social security, what is a bad idea has the ability to account for a growing share of federal dollars flowing from Washington. The latter is worried Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, along with the Liberty, such as the Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute, but this situation should encourage those who prefer to raise government growth wherever we can find them.
Rampell and Boccia are worried about the federal government that does not have enough money to spend, as social security represents a growing share of federal spending, but perhaps at least Boccia could be convinced that this is a characteristic of the ‘bearing’ social security. As supported in my upcoming book The illusion of deficitThe greater the reception of social security from general revenue, the fewer opportunities for politicians on both sides to dream of new ways to spend our money.
The simple, economy-instruction of the truth is that most government programs start small, only to grow. Growth is a result of each program that has at least one component on both sides of the corridor in Congress. Once sponsors can be found on both sides, it is difficult to kill what should not have been given life to begin.
So, while social security remains a bad idea, it is a bad idea that we all know and that most of us have worked around. See the previous comment on the density of financial services companies. Instead of giving political class new dollars to dream of new programs, it is best to just allow social security to “raise”. The so -called “insolvency” cannot come soon enough.
