There are many proposed ways to deal with the problem of funding social security in our country's future. The problem, though, is not with funding social security as much as it is with the consequences of funding social security and what those consequences will mean for us when we reach the retirement age.
Playing the social security game demonstrated some proposed solutions to help fund social security, and the consequences that went along with allotting that funding. There are three basic ways to fix the social security problem: reduce benefits, increase revenue, or investing money in the private sector. Benefit reduction requires cutting out some current funding in the future to save on total costs. Increasing revenues allows for continued benefits, but at the cost of tax dollars. Investing in the private sector involves possibilities for added retirement funds, but is not as reliable as one would like when dealing with retirement.
Out of all the changes that can be made in this game, using “progressive indexing” and cutting back on benefits for people making $20,000 per year or more. Doing this would account for 70% of the funding needed to keep social security going for the years to come, but it comes at a very big cost. I don't believe that “progressive indexing” would necessarily be a good idea, because it would affect so many people.
This is meant to take some of the benefits from the workers that make more money and spread this around to help make up for others that may be lacking. The problem that I see is that $20,000 per year is too low, and may end up taking extra benefits from people who are in severe need of it. If “progressive indexing” were to be implemented I would propose raising that minimum to $35,000. This would obviously cut into the funding, but it would still offer some help with it and I believe that it would be more fairly distributed to the ones in need.
There were four changes that I would make to solve the social security...