All this talk of social security reform... and yet there is no real reform here, simply an attempt at slight restructuring, as I see it.
Social Security started because the government felt that people needed to be protected from their own lack of foresight in saving for the future. For some reason, since most people were too weak-willed to save and put away money for the future, the government felt the need to force everyone to save through Social Security, whether they wanted to or not.
Changing where you put the money that you are forced to give to the program isn't a reform, it is just a change. And making it so people who work harder have to put in more to the system and get out less is just wrong, and just teaches people to be lazy so they can get more "free" stuff. I have a better idea...
The name of this idea is Personal Responsability. It goes something like this: The government pays out all benefits currently required as one lump sum, getting into a large amount of debt obviously to do so. The pain of doing that is unfortunate but must happen, and will only happen once. Long before this happens, and once such a move is announced, many private firms will begin plans to offer serivces to americans to make up for it. Some of that money will undoubtedly go into people's existing retirement and personal accounts. Other people won't know what to do with the money and won't have existing accounts, which is where new and existing firms will pick up the baton. Now people are responsible for their own destiny, and nobody is taking their freedoms away by forcing them to pay into a retirement program.
Actually, I also envision a move away from the Welfare program to be simultaneous. Rather than forcing people to pay out more money in their income taxes, that money goes right to people, who then must decide how responsible they will be with that money. Private firms will come into existence with something akin to auto insurance now, but it will be unemployment/underemployment insurance. To apply for it, you'll have to give a lot of information, much like auto companies now look at your age, driving record, claims history, dedcutible, coverage amounts, etc. Some information that would probably be required for the company to know would include: age, employment history, education, skills, monthly payout amount that would be needed, maximum number of months that benefits would be received, etc. Although people wouldn't be forced to have nemployment/underemployment insurance, if they became unemployed or underemployed, they would be on their own, which some people may choose to do and just put money away.
The point is that it is not the goverment's job to force us to give up what we earn (in effect legalizing stealing and taking away our freedoms) so that it can "protect us" from ourselves. As long as the government sees fit to let us get away with as little personal responsability as possible, society will continue to deteriorate into a litigious, self-centered, "me-me-me", "I deserve this" society.
