…. it should be titled, “social security won’t go broke if we raise social security taxes“
This article is misleading in a number of ways.
Where is the inclusion of information about the IOU’s?
Where is the recommendation to add means testing to ensure proper distribution?
Why are the only solutions to increase taxes?
How can you claim SSI isn’t “going broke”, when you, and everyone else, is aware that it will be insolvent (ie paying more out than receiving in, ie most people’s definition of “broke”) in 2021 (as mentioned in the 15th paragraph)? This article is basically denying the obvious, while admitting the obvious to be true farther into the writing, and justifying its argument by advocating for higher taxation.
Social security needs fixes, but increasing taxes isn’t the way to go, IMO. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But denying the obvious isn’t a great persuasion tactic. Better to be upfront and honest with the situation and your strategy…
On a side note:
“The other effect was a huge increase in consumer debt, as Americans saddled with higher Social Security taxes took out loans to cover other needs. ”
I’ve never heard of ANYONE EVER who claimed they took on more consumer debt because of SSI taxes. Have you?
Because of stagnant wages (no raises?)? Yup.
Because of school, moving, loss of job, change in family, vacation, large purchase, new home, unexpected expenses/repairs, insurance increases, medical bills, even gas prices, change in interest rates, etc? YUP.
Really, honestly, (I ask again) have you ever EVER heard anyone ascribe the reason they acquired more debt to SSI payroll taxes?
RIDICULOUS BAIT AND SWITCH ARTICLE.
(also, includes required partisan blame-game, paragraph 10. I don’t doubt that Reagan has blame, but as the only mention of a particular politician, I doubt the author’s lack of mention to any other President is reflective of the overall responsibility for SSI insolvency.)