My expenses are crazy high.
Let’s start with college. I have been paying college tuition for the last 4 years, and I have 5 more years to go. Between my oldest son who just graduated, and my middle son, currently at the University of Colorado in Boulder, their combined educations will cost $200,000. My youngest, a high school senior in Louisville, will cost me $200,000.
I also have two house payments, feed my kids and my animals, and pay my satellite, my insurance and everyone’s Internet and phone bills. I also donate to various charities. To be honest, I’m not complaining, but the money goes quickly. And like most people, my costs have increased faster than my income.
Now, there’s a small revenue kicker to my revenue plan: my son receives a social security payment.
Tragically, my wife passed away almost three years ago, and when she did, my high school son became eligible for social security to the tune of $580 per month.
However, does my son really need Social Security?
My late wife hadn’t worked since the boys were born, but she paid into the Social Security system for a decade prior. Because my son is under 18, and because he is in school, he is eligible for Social Security. I am not alone. Many widows and widowers raising children under 18 receive a similar payment.
I suppose I could have rejected the payment, but I didn’t. Social Security pays for the dog walker, the house cleaner, our increased laundry expenses, and small tasks that my late wife use to perform. The payments will continue until June, 2012, when he graduates high school.
The real question is why should my son receive a payment for something that was irrelevant for over 15 years? My late wife hadn’t worked since he was born. We received no income from her, and while she provided important “cost based” services such as child care, dog walking, and cleaning, the reality is we didn’t need the money after she died.
I would have found a way.
Granted, there are many people not as fortunate as us who absolutely need and deserve this payout. But why not amend this policy for people who can afford to pick up the slack? For example, those making over $!50,000 a year don’t get a payout, or monies are paid on a sliding scale.
I would bet there are many tiny elements of the Social Security code that are good intentioned, but are now too expensive to maintain. Mine is just one small example of the lack of governmental fiscal discipline. There must be thousands of other examples small on their own, but big when consolidated.
I have committed to my children I will get them through their college years so they are debt-free when they graduate. This means I will soon be making very tough financial choices. I will sell one or both my homes at a loss in order to improve my cash flow, I will eliminate my satellite and my land-based phone lines, and I will ask my oldest who now works full-time to pick up all of his expenses including his insurance and his cell phone.
I don’t expect a raise from my employer, and I don’t have the luxury of finding an additional job. But, I know I need to reduce my expenses and improve my cash flow if my youngest is to graduate debt free.
Congress and the various administrators of our “entitled” agencies need to take action to reduce our national expenses and increase our national revenues. To those in Congress, please don’t look at ideas such as this as taxing the rich, but as a way to gently remove the entitlements for the people in this country who want to, and can afford to, do the right thing.
While, I’m not looking forward to losing my son’s $580 contribution to our family’s revenue plan, I’m happy the U.S. government can count on getting a raise after his graduation.
Michael L. Puldy lives in Superior. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
