The problem boils down to money, but I am assuming you are looking for the causes of the problem.
<span>1. Social Security was never indexed correctly to accommodate the growing life expectancy on those drawing on it. The age at which you can collect should have changed in concert with the life expectancy of the population, or the amount of the benefits should have been decreased if they wanted to keep the age at which you receive it from keeping pace with lefe expectancy. </span>
<span>2. The growth in income inequality has led to vast amounts of money being earned by fewer people and the tax on social security has a limit so any income over the limit is not subject to the tax. Right now that cap is around 109k/year...so someone making 125k/year pays the same amount into social security as someone making 10 million a year. As more wealth is concentrated with fewer people, even vast increases in income and/or wealth yields little increase to the amount collected via the SS tax. </span>
<span>3. Not necessarily on the scale as 1 and 2 above but fraud is also a cause of the monetary shortfall. There are those that cheat the system. Every so often you will hear stories of people getting caught in social security fraud rings where they collect either through identity theft or other criminal means. You also have people that will collect when a relative passes away. They will purposely not report the death or provide invalid SS information so they will continue to receive the deceased person's benefits long after they have died. </span>
<span>As far as a solution, you are stuck with the eventuality of either decreasing benefits, raising the retirement age, or increasing the amount of taxes collected...none of which are likely to fly in Congress. Programs like SS rely on growing the base of people from which you are collecting, but at some point this does not happen. Population growth is not automatic and even with population growth, the concentration of income at the top percent of people offsets any such growth. It may be considered a very progressive/liberal thought, but eliminating the cap on income from which SS tax is collected would help. You can still keep the cap on SS benefits meaning the people at the top of the income ladder would be paying far more than they would get out of it in 10 lifetimes...but this would neutralize the income inequality impact on the system. To be honest, if there was an easy solution, we would have done it by now.</span>
Business I think would be right
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
After having relative prosperity during the second half of the 20th century until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Citizens from Russia experimented relative economic hardship during the rest of the 90s. The government led by Boris Yeltsin was not successful in the transition of the economic model from socialism to open market capitalism.
Then came Vladimir Putin at the beginning of the 21st century. Under his regime, the Russian economy experimented a sustained growth due to the rising prices of oil. Industries like production, construction, real estate, and financial services all grew.
As a consequence of the improvement of the economy, the middle class grew as well as their income. GDP per capita (the amount of money the average Russian gains over a year) sharply rose since the beginning of Putin's regime and is barely reaching $12000 in 2017.
However, the country still fails to score positively in regarding corruption levels and freedom of speech. As the government is constantly accused of suppressing political opposition.
This leads to describing the standard of living of the average Russian citizen as constantly improving in economic terms, but still lacking the guarantee of security and freedom of speech.
Answer:
um ok then buddy... (slowly exits)
Explanation:
