Everyone knows or has at least heard that there is a problem with the Social Security system. As people live longer and grow older and stay retired for many more years than they have in the past the amount of money required to fund Social security grows. Given the fact the ratio of those paying into the system versus those taking out of the system is an ever shrinking margin you would think we would have to find a way to pour more money into the system or reduce the benefits of the system in order to maintain long-term stability and solvency. Not so says Barbara Bergmann a professor of economics. On a side note I swear all these crazy economics professors have either embraced socialist economics with a fervor or have come out as out right proponents of wealth redistribution as a valid form of economic theory.
Bergmann does not believe that the U.S. government will have a problem financing and providing benefits through social security. She believes the program is like any other government-run program. However, she is quoting the lie given to the public in the 30’s that Social Security would be like a trust fund in the way you would get back what you paid in during your working years. We know from the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor (1960) that it was ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time. But that is not anything new either since it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1937 in Helvering v. Davis that, “the proceeds of both the employer and the employee taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally and are not earmarked in any way.”
All this basically says is that time after time the Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is not going to be there for you if the government decides they don’t feel they can pay it, or they have run out of money. Bergmann doesn’t touch on this inconvenient truth, to steal a line from another big liberal fool, at all in her article. Instead she focuses on the ability of the government to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to provide more money into the system to have the money to pay out of the system. Well here is some shocking news, there is a limit to how much taxes and what percentage you can squeeze out of the wealthy and the successful before it starts to impact their ability to earn. Once you have reached that threshold you have even greater problems, because the economy’s ability to thrive directly affects the government’s ability to function. There is no government operation without the money coming in to fund it. If you don’t think that is the case, look at what happened to Greece, they got to the point where social and welfare programs were eating up most of their cash and then more cash than what they were bringing in they were really only left with one option more taxes to raise revenue. Now granted Greece has other problems as well, but revenue stream and taxes are a significant portion of that problem.
So what about raising taxes to fund this beast of a Social Security program? As the taxes on corporations and businesses increase and they have less profit, they are going to lay off people to maintain that margin to stay open. Those people end up on the dole and government taxes more to keep paying them, thus ever shrinking the economy. Kind of what half of California is going through right now. Perhaps if they just imposed a 100% tax on everyone and everything and just administered it, everyone would be okay. I suppose that is the fair way to do these things. The private sector cannot and should not be expected to fund any level of government expenditures. With ever-increasing calls to fund and every social program, education, social security, Medicaid, medicare, the Federal Reserve, farm subsidies, foreign aid, etc., it is a wonder the private sector has not collapsed all together under the demands of the spenders. If America doesn’t wake up and say enough, the lack of social security payments are going to be the least of our concerns.