potential policies that could improve the financial viability of Social Security.

potential policies that could improve the financial viability of Social Security.

Different policies have been designed to promote the financial viability of social security. Below is the loss of the policies for improving the financial viability of social security.

1. Raise the full retirement age

The full should be raised from 65 to 66 which would raise gradually for individuals born in 1960 and later. This will cut the benefit by 16 percent.

2.   Increase the Payroll Tax Cap

The policy proposes to lift the cap to cover 90%of total earnings. This helps the top earners to pay more cash into social security. The top earners also receive more benefits.  The policy reflects the intention of congress proposal in 1997 which require 90% of earning to be charged.  The cover helps in closing the social security fund gap.

3.   Reduce Benefits for Higher Earners

Payment of social security benefit is based on workers earnings subjected to Security to Social Security payroll taxes.  Though lower lifetime earners receive lower payment compared to higher lifetime earners, their benefits are higher as opposed to higher lifetime earners. Reducing benefits for higher lifetime earners plays a critical role in closing Social Security’s funding gap. Several approaches are used to modify Social Security’s benefit formula based on the amount of benefit reduced to higher earners. This will help everyone continue receiving benefits. This is achieved by reducing the benefit of the higher earners.

4.   Increase the Payroll Tax Rate

Currently, each employee and employer pay a 6.2% tax on earnings up to $110,100 from Social Security. Self-employed pays 12.4 % tax of social security earnings. Raising the payroll tax for all employers and workers helps close the Social Security funding gap. The pay tax rate is proposed to be increased from 6.2% to 6.5% from 2018 to 2023. It is estimated that this will fill the funding gap by 22%. Gradual increase of employers and employees payroll tax rate in the next 20 years from 6.2 %t to 7.2% is estimated to fill the funding gap by 64%. On centrally this would increase the taxes of every worker regardless of his or her income. The payroll tax also increases labor cost discourage employing and encourage the employer to automate production processes or move overseas. This reduces job opportunities for young people and also for older workers hence resulting in early retirement.

.

5.   Begin Means-Testing Social Security Benefits-

The means test is one option of closing the Social Security’s funding gap. This would reduce the benefit for higher-income recipients. Means-Testing could also eliminate highest-income households’ benefits. Mean test applies full range of current income to reduce higher income earners benefits.

I recommend the mean test as the best policy as it helps in reducing the retirement payouts for employees/ workers with high incomes. In long-run this will reduce Social Security’s funding gap Percent. The policy also plays an important role in the fair distribution of resources to the citizens.

Should We Ration Health Care for Older People”? (pp. 361-393)

The social security cover all registered worker in United State except local government and state employees. The question of whether we should ration health care for older people has been an issue of debate over time. Many scholars believe that health care for older people should be rationed based on different factors. Older people with more than 65 years in America spend more than $200 billion on Medicare. Having said that, rationing health care based on age is not enough for American older people. We need a justifiable approach for rationing older people so that to prolong their life. When setting the policy for resource allocation we should come up with a way of knowing who should be allocated higher healthcare resources.

Critiques argue that age rationing affects those who depend on programs run by the government. The older people who cannot afford to pay private facilities. Age –rationing would therefore promote or make the problem of access based on ability to pay worse. To enhance improved health care for older people different rationing has been proposed. One approach is the cost-benefit analysis. This approach measures the cost in relation to the benefits gained by saving lives. This discourages high-cost treatment for older people since their productivity is low. The other one is a cost-effective approach where we ensure that treatment is offered using minimal cost.

To answer whether we should ration health care for older people the issue of ethics should be also considered. The ethic of waste avoidance and rationing are complementary and not competing. Waste avoidance will help in future cost control and universal coverage. With the global goal of equitable distribution of resources, the issue of ethics in rationing will be faced out. In my view, the rationing important for older people but the best option for covering older people is the provision of universal health care where every people can be treated equally. This will play a critical role in equitable distributable of health resources.