More handpicked essays just for you.
Editorial on the cons of privatizing social security
Editorial on the cons of privatizing social security
Editorial on the cons of privatizing social security
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Privatizing of social security has been a subject of debate over the years ever since former president George. W. Bush suggested it back in 2004.Over 96% of the American workers benefit from the social security after paying the social security tax (Aaron 12). This is to say that over 49 million people receive some amount of money from the system which fortunately for them is much higher than the taxes they contribute towards the same. While such payment may not be more than $895, nearly two thirds of the American retired population acquires half of their income from the social security payments. For some it is the only source of income. One importance of this social security is its ability to cover the users from unpredictable economic environment including fluctuations in demand and supply and inflation rates. Additionally the security covers them against possible disability or unexpected demise of loved ones. So with the increasing economic uncertainty both nationally and globally, social security is needed more than ever before and this is why privatizing it is the worst idea ever. …show more content…
It should not be forgotten that about 17% of the population receiving payment from social security is not yet retired. Additionally, over 12% of the beneficiaries are spouses and children of either retired, disabled or deceased workers (ProCon.Org 04). Privatizing social security will mean that the money used to pay more the insurance cover will be directed to individual accounts while the taxes on social security will be lost. Simple calculations suggest that loss of such funding translates to loss of income for more than 37% of the population who yet to retire. The disabled together with their kin will lose what is probably the only source of
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...
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
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.
Throughout the 20th century governmental responsibility has made remarkable progress. One major milestone of the widening of the responsibility of the federal government was it’s making an obligation to care for the elderly and retired in the form of social security. In 1935, the Social Security Act was enacted by the federal government to provide financial security to the elderly, retired citizens in America. Although the federal government first took on this responsibility in 1935, it is still affecting our lives today. However, social security would not have advanced this far without many organizations and individual reformers to begin and improve social security throughout history.
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
In order to keep social security for future retirees, there needs to be some effective changes. Social Security was created in 1935, and since then, times have changed drastically. Using a law that was created when life expectancy was not high, or not considering the possibility of a large generation retiring around the same time would not ECONOMICAL ISSUES WITH SOCIAL SECURITY 7 be practical and a good idea. If anything, there should be changes made to the law. Instead of everyone contributing to the social security pot, why not have a personal social security savings account.
Lets discuss a pro about what would happen or in better terms, something good that would happen through privatizing social security. As we all know, some Americans do not like the government being in charge of so much of life. If Social Security became privatized, this would emancipate the American people and give each individual citizen a right to have control ove...
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.
Today, the future of Social Security is in the news again. The reason Social Security is of such concern is that the extremely large group of citizens born in the post-World War II period—the much-discussed baby-boom generation—is retiring. The generation that will take its place in the workforce is far smaller in proportion to the number of retirees, raising fears about the sustainability of Social Security. In the past, proposed solutions to the various problems facing Social Security aroused great debate. Each time, however, the arguments were stilled, repairs were made, and the system continued to fulfill its mandate. That uncertainty about the future has resulted in suggestions for change that range from minor adjustments to complete privatization of the ...
"Social Security Should Be Run by the Government" by Institute for America's Future.Capitalism. Noël Merino, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2010. Institute for America's Future, The Perils of Privatization: Social Security Privatization Cuts Lifetime Benefits; Makes Senior Citizens Vulnerable to Poverty: The Impact in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Institute for America's Future, 2008. Reproduced by permission. .
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.
In this essay I will analyse the origins of Community Care and what benefits emerged when the NHS Community Care Act 1990 was established. Later on, I will explain and critically evaluate the effects of privatisation in social care and health.
America is the greatest nation in the world. That is a sentence that has been stated many times by many different people, for many different reasons. Whether those reasons are militarily related, based on global political influence, or even economically. However one reason that this statement is repeated over and over again is the fact that America is the “land of opportunity”, a place where anyone can come, work hard and make something of themselves. No matter your age, race, religion, gender or creed, in America you have the opportunity to make something better for yourself and your family. However this ability, this “American Dream” is under attack. Not only is it under attack, it is under attack from within, from our own citizens. The motto of America seems to be changing, from “the land of opportunity”, a place you can work your way to prosperity, to the land of giving, a place where you can lounge yourself through life on someone else’s dime.