Re:On Reform (Score 1)

The fact that todays senior citizens have received more than they paid into it (although factors of hundreds and thousands seems quite high) should not be the issue. They paid into the system to support senior citizens of their time, who were living within the economic requirements of the same time. As economic requirements of living are raised due to inflation, so must incomes be raised. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much they put in, they are getting the benefit of incomes of the present times.

One major factor that affects Social Security is the number of recipients versus the number of people putting money into the system, which has decreased since modern medicine has enabled more people to live to older ages. As this number decreases, things get worse for Social Security.

Another factor is the increase of the gap between the rich and the poor. Those making over $80,000 don't pay the full percentage into the system. As the gap increases, less money flows into the system per person (average Social Security income is lowered).

A mitigating factor would be to raise the $80,000 limit along with inflation. The current limit means that it is effectively cheaper to pay into the system (on an overall basis) now than when the $80,000 limit was instituted. You could even remove the limit altogether, which would go a long way.

However, your point is still taken that we now have a lower recipient to payer ratio than ever before.

There seems to be 2 camps. One camp feels that everyone should be responsible for themselves. If they don't properly save for retirement, then that is their problem. The other camp says that we should have a system that everyone participates in.

The problem I see is that if everyone is on their own, we are going to have hoards of seniors who do not have enough money to live off of. Then we are really going to have a crisis.