Privatizing Social Security
Social Security
In August 14th, 1935 Franklin D. Roosevelt signed The Social Security Act. At the time, Social Security was put in place as a retirement plan. It allowed people retirees a steady stream of income, while they were in retirement. Today the system offers a variety of additional programs like disability insurance, and Medicare. The system was set up as a paygo system, but since we expect the ratio between workers and beneficiaries to drop over time the Social Security Administration has added the Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund with the surpluses that they receive in revenue. The benefits that Social Security pays out to each eligible recipient is a function of the
…show more content…
Ending Social Security would mean there are millions of workers that are currently receiving payments and don’t have time to save on their own. Plus, there are millions of workers that have been paying into Social Security for a majority of their working life and deserve some sort of benefit because of it. That is one of the reasons that Gary Burtless, an economist from the Brookings Institution that holds the John C. and Nancy D. Whitehead Chair in Economic Studies said that, “No rich country can immediately scrap its public retirement system and replace it with a private system. In the United States, for example, more than 44 million people -- about one in six residents -- collects benefits under the public Social Security system.” With that in mind it seems like implementing the system will have to take several years and perhaps decades. By cutting the program we could expect a sharp increase of elderly people in …show more content…
In Olivia S. Mitchell and Stephen P. Zeldes paper, Social Security Privatization: A structure for analysis, they said that the government can, “Compensate current system participants for loss of promised benefits by giving them specially issued government “recognition” bonds worth no more than the value of their accrued benefits minus the present value of the demogrant.” This would give them an indexed annuity fund and would accurately compensate them for their participation of Social Security. The same compensation would have to also be given to those that paid for part of their working career, but still have enough time to save for retirement. Some of these bonds can be funded from the OASDI trust fund, but this would not cover all of the expected cost. This means there is still an issue on where the funds would come from to fund the ending of Social Security, but the government has a variety of options on where they can fund this part of the privatizing system.
Risk vs. Reward Once there is a resolution to funding the compensation to the people that paid into Social Security, but didn’t get to receive their benefit it is clear that privatizing Social Security would lead to some economic changes. Most economist agree that people could expect to have a higher rate of return. Gary Burtless said in his Social Security Privatization
Municipal control or an alternative delivery method? This is the question that has intrigued all levels of local government and created intense debates between taxpayers across municipalities. The services that municipalities provide are often vital to the existence of a local area. The issues of accountability, cost savings, quality of service and democracy often arise when choosing the best options to deliver services to a municipal area. In recent years the concepts of privatization, alternative service delivery and public-private partnerships are often promoted as ways cut down on overburdened annual city budgets and promote a higher quality of service to citizens. Municipalities have historically always provided basic services such as fire protection, water purification/treatment and recreational facilities. However, would private companies or another municipality be able to better deliver the same services more efficiently or at a lower cost? The city or town often provides a political grass roots approach to most local problems. Municipalities are better positioned and have a wider scope to provide services to their constituents in order to ensure quality of service that does not erode accountability and transparency, or drive the municipality deeper into debt.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
There are millions of Americans affected by social security. These Americans rely on social security to provide them with financial security. Recently President Bush agreed to proposing a method of privatizing the social security program so that in the future the vast reserves of the social security system would not run out nearly as fast. With the always increasing rise in inflation, and the baby boomer generation reaching ages of retirement fairly soon, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with correctly and rapidly. The way the president is handling the situation is definitely the right way to do it. There are many things and ways in which to do it wrong, but the president seems to be pointing the plans of social security in the right direction. The president’s plans of reforming social security are right because the privatization is the best way to go, changing the rules for those who would apply for it increases the savings and makes the money go farther, and working with the distribution of different tax percentages would really make the money go a lot farther.
In America’s early days before the kickoff of industry, there was little need for retirement savings for a few key reasons. First of all, people were dying at a much earlier age; most people didn’t live past 38, whereas in 1900, 60 years of age was common for about 40 percent of the population and 15 percent experienced 80 years of life. Another reason for the irrelevance of social security in the 19th century and earlier was that people were usually living rurally on farms with extended families to take care of them. Furthermore, the Civil War also didn’t allow the government much economic room to consider providing a service such as social security. However, after the Civil War, pensions were a form of social security for civil war veterans that carried into their retirement. Unfortunately these pensions provided support for only a very small portion of the population; not even one percent of Americans received these pensions. Despite a much lower need for social security in the 18th ...
Social security was designed to assist constituents during financial hardship. The program insured non-Negroes who needed unemployment compensation, met retirement age requirements, or child welfare prevention programs. Despite its forward objective, critics’ perception of the social security program was depicted as legal thievery. M.A.’s candid retort to the government’s evasive program was simply to rape the pocket’s of the people. M.A. as well as others primarily prepared for retirement or a rainy day from stock returns. Contrarily, the social security program stimulated other economic restructures, which included limited full-time workers. The shift in the economy and Roosevelt’s failed promises created a wedge between the people and the government. For instance, Mrs. OM voices her views of President Roosevelt’s campaign as a misleading trick. She further explained
PROS: The proponents of privatization of social security stated, “Workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system 's solvency.”
pros and cons. The pros would be that the people who really needed social security would be receiving it, and it would also be able to fulfill it’s initial purpose, which was to act as a safety net for retirees. One of the cons would be having to determine the amount of income that would qualify as a high-class income.
Medicare and Medicaid are one of important government programs. According to Medicaid.gov site, there are more than 4.6 million low-income seniors enrolled in Medicare and about 8.3 million people that are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. Anyone that enrolled with Medicare and limited income and resources are eligible to get assistance paying for their premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses from Medicaid. Not only does Medicaid cover additional services, but, services covered by both programs are first paid by Medicare with Medicaid in the difference up to the state’s payment limit (Medicaid.gov, 2015) .
The Social Security Act was enacted in 1935, and since then it has undergone numerous revisions and amendments. Today the act covers a wide range of benefit programs, including Medicare, unemployment compensation, and Supplemental Security Income. The major portion for which the Social Security Act has become known, however, is the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, or OASDI. While today the OASDI program is most frequently referred to as “Social Security,” it is only a thread in what has been called the “social safety net.” Therefore, throughout this paper, it should be understood that Social Security will be the term used to refer to all its encompassed programs as a group, as a matter of convenience.
Social Security is a system that was set up in 1935 after the Great depression to help people get through tough times. "Social Security is now used by nearly 44 million Americans"(policy.com). Only people who payed into social security are eligible to collect when they retire. Many people think that they receive the money they pay in but that is not total true. The money that you pay in is used for the people that are receiving it now. "In 1950 there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are only three workers per beneficiary"(policy.com). There is more money going into social security then coming out now. The extra money goes into a trust to be used when it is needed. By the year 2032 those numbers are going to drop. By this time most baby boomers will be retired and collecting social security. This will put a big strain on the funds. There will be more money going out then coming in. And it will not take long to use all the money that is in the trust. By the year 2034 they will only be able to pay 75 percent of the beneficiaries. "The projected average monthly Social Security benefit in 2032 of about 1,100 (in 1998 dollars) would fall to about $800, and would drop further in later years. Average benefits for low-wage earners would drop from $670 to $480"(www.ssab). Theses cut would effect the people just starting to receive benefits and those who are already receiving benefits. And with each year these benefits will decrease. As these benefits continue to decrease "the percentage of aged people living in poverty would rise"(www.ssab).Most people believe this is happening because of the baby boomers generation. There will be more people taking from social security then giving in. By the time my generation is eliable to receive social security there may not be any money to give.
Social Security is on the verge of taking care of the baby boomers generation. This means that it will be paying more benefits than taxes it receives. In lay-man’s terms it means it will be spending more money than it is making. I think that you should pay into your own private retirement account for you to reap the benefits in the future. Not for you to pay into a cluster of workers money for current elders to benefit from. You need to take care of your own future and not rely on other people’s responsibility. “…people began to think retirement funding as a right…and so…started saving less” (Klay & Steen). That being said, people of a certain age should be “grandfathered” into this meaning, people of the age of say 40, still get the normal social security retirement money but anyone younger must start abiding this new reform. If you get married, keep paying into your own unless your spouse is not working. If that is the case then pay the same amount BUT put half into your own and half into your spouses. If the other spouse is working however, they should pay into their own account and you into your own.
...bout higher deductibles, reduced benefits, or the probability of a government-run program that many not meet its commitment. The increase in the nation?s savings rate would not only benefit retirees, but would strengthen the economy. Savings would be invested privately, which would create new businesses and jobs.
Before the social security act of 1935 the support of the elderly was a “state matter”, the state held the power to regulate money that was given to the people. The elderly and physically disabled had to rely on their sates to implement programs to help them financially and most states during the great depression didn’t see this problem as a necessity. The Roosevelt administration caught this and created social security on a national level. “The social security act of 1935, an act which sought to provide general welfare by establishing a system of federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several states to make more adequate provisions” (SSA). The key word in the quote is “federal old age benefits” which means the...
Social security, since instituted in 1935, has kept many elderly people from running below the poverty line (Hosansky). In 2015, the Social Security Administration predicted that the funds would be depleted by 2034 (Max). This poses a serious threat to the living situation of future generations when they retire. Our elderly, by today’s standards, enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. They are able to retire and still make over one thousand dollars a month. Some people also have private pensions which allow them to live even more comfortably. But with social security funds running out, we must ask the inevitable question. Is it worth having social security anymore? Social security should be kept. One must never fully rely on social security. In addition
There is much-heated debate on the issues of Social Security today. The Social Security system is the largest government program of income distribution in the United States. People are concerned that they won't see a dime of what they worked so hard to contribute into the Social Security system for so many years. Social Security provides benefits to about forty-three million Americans. Not only to retired workers, but also to their spouses and dependents of the workers who die prematurely. It also provides benefits to disabled workers and their dependents. Social Security appears to most people like a simple retirement saving’s account. After all, you generally contribute through payroll deductions, then get money back after you retire. Nonetheless, Social Security is a complex and intricate communal program. By design, Social Security involves massive subsidies from the next generation of retirees to the present, from single workers to married couples. Now that the gigantic post World War II baby boomers generation approaches retirement age, there is concern about the consequences it will have on Social Security. There are basically three options, we can do nothing and allow Social Security to run it’s course, revise Social Security, or consider privatization of the system.