Latest News

Does Social Security really need to be expanded?

Breaking away from the election cycle hysteria about the need to expand Social Security because it doesn’t provide enough for people to live on, this article makes a different argument – that retirees are among the richest Americans and there’s no need to expand the program’s benefits. Andrew Biggs, the author of this National Review article, backs up his theory with convincing statistics which show that wages have risen substantially in recent years, with those age 65 and over seeing the biggest and fastest increases in income levels. Temper this with the fact that Social Security was never intended to provide all the retirement income anyone would need; indeed it was intended to provide only about 40% or less of retirement income. That’s not to say that Social Security doesn’t need some changes, because it clearly does. But, as the article points out, political pandering to get votes isn’t a valid reason for changing it. Click here to read the National Review article by Andrew Biggs.

Notice: The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; cannot guarantee the duration of the link’s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or

What's Your Opinion?

We welcome your comments. Join the discussion and let your voice be heard. All fields are required

Website by Geiger Computers