Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Roles of educations in the society
Effect of income inequality in us
Roles of educations in the society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roles of educations in the society
Requiring the top one percent to pay more taxes will generate more money that can be used to better education, healthcare, and social security. All of the following are very important to a society. For example, in an article by Travis Bennett titled “The Many Advantages of Education,” he notes, “the positive influence that [individuals] can have on society once they are armed with the knowledge and experience to make a difference is immense, and there is no doubt that education is key to a world that is also a great place in which to live” (Bennett). Education in specific is very important society. With education, there are so many different aspects of the world that can be missed out on. If richer individuals pay more taxes, they will be distributed to …show more content…
Lastly, many people depend on social security after retirement. Moreover, a lot of people who have retired depend on social security for more than half of their income. With that being said, reforms definitely need to be made in order to protect and better social security. In fact, in his article, “Why We Need Social Security” by Paul Starr, an award-winning writer, and professor, he states, “The elderly used to be an age group with an especially high rate of poverty. One of the signal achievements of Social Security, hardly noticed today, is that poverty has fallen dramatically among Americans over age 65 to just 10 percent, lower than the 12-percent rate for the population as a whole” (Starr). Social security plays a vital role in lowering the poverty rate and as Starr mentions, the poverty rate has dramatically decreased with social security. Therefore, keeping in mind the benefits of social security, the country should spend more time and money that will ultimately be used from taxes in bettering the system for future and current
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.
Stephen C. Goss has extensively written about the future financial status of the social security program for the Americans and for the whole world at large. He patently articulates that changes enacted in 1983 on Social Security are expected to bring dynamic revolution, such that the benefits and other compensations would be paid in full and on a timely basis until 2037. In 2037, trust fund reserves are expected to be virtually exhausted. After the reserves are used, continuing taxes will be vastly relied upon to pay 76% of the benefits. There will be need and the necessity for the Congress to deliberate on changes concerning the program. It is estimated that reduction of benefits by 13% or a sudden increase in payroll tax to 14.4% from 12.4% or a combination of these two strategies will lead to full payment of scheduled benefits for the next 75 years. In the article, Stephen Goss explicitly analyzes the financial state of the Social Security program. He fundamentally analyzes the aspects of solvency and sustainability. It also evaluates the effect of the social program on the federal budget. It is apparent that social benefits that Americans deserve will continue in the future with certain adjustments to be implemented by the congress and by the legislative bodies.
Many ponder the idea of federal taxes and whether the wealthy deserve to pay a higher percentage rate of their overall income. That is, they argue that because our society needs more equality and a lower national budget deficit, taxes on the rich must be raised. This specific topic has been discussed for decades, and due to the severely different perspectives, it is unclear whether the two sides will ever come to an agreement. President Barack Obama and much of the Democratic Party strongly lean towards raising taxes on the rich, while the conservatives and the Republican Party heavily lean towards a more balanced flat tax. However, after extensive research and focus on what would be best for the equality of individuals, the nation and its economy, this paper will firmly prove that the top one percent should not be taxed any more than they are today.
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.
Each day that goes by there is a politician or journalist arguing about social security, the plans for saving it, and the repercussions of said plans. These topics are constantly flowing through newspapers, internet sites, online journals, and economic journals as well as many other forms of media. The major topic of discussion is the plan put forth by the current administration to reform social security, or more specifically, privatize it. There is no correct argument or correct opinion on how the situation with social security should be handled. Unfortunately, the government has the power in their hands to do with it as they see fit. Presented in this paper are numerous articles stating the condition of social security and specific problems with the way social security stands today.
Aaron Hill from Education Portal suggests “ A progressive tax system really acts as a tool for redistributing income from the upper class to the lower and middle class. Those individuals who earn more pay more into the federal government. This helps keeps the income gap from growing wider between the rich and the poor.” Although this is what the government claims most of the money is just recirculated for the federal government to use as it’s own
Despite the retirement income crisis, Social Security should be expanded, not reduced. In Arthur Delaney’s article on the Huffington Post, Senator Bernie Sanders stated, “With the middle class struggling and more people living in poverty than ever before, we cannot afford to make life even more difficult for seniors.” A push to adopt CPI-E, rather than a switch to a “chained” consumer price index that cuts retiree benefits, would m...
...erational social insurance program” (Sloan, 2010). To transform it into some sort of massive investment club instantly gives an advantage to higher-income people over lower-income people as “they won’t need immediate retirement income and can wait out markets” (Sloan, 2010) should the market be in one of its periodic downturns. On the other hand, Social Security, structured as it is, “favors lower-income people-as it should” (Sloan, 2010). And that is a sentiment I share.
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
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
The flat tax will make taxes fair for all people. No matter what race a person is, what social class a person is in, or who they’re friends with, they will end up paying the same rate. Every single taxpayer will have to sacrifice just as much of his or her life as the next person down the road. One of the three main reasons for taxes is to maintain fairness. This is most reasonable ways to maintain fairness. The wealthy will still be paying more money than the poor person, but they both have the same tax burden.
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.
Social Security has been around for over fifty years now, and has provided for secure retirements for many generations of people. However, Social Security may not be here when the next generation of people becomes old enough to start retiring. This would not only jeopardize the retirement of many people, it would be theft of the money that people have had to pay into the system. Seeing how Social Security spends more money than it takes in, privatization of Social Security is crucial in retiree benefits, especially considering that it would keep the program running and would allow retirees to get higher returns on their investments into Social Security.
Income inequality is a big problem in the United States because the top, wealthiest American saw huge increases in their incomes, which the rest had their incomes go down. Bottom people do not have the same amount of money and the opportunity to move up the social ladder as the rich people do. In order to reduce income inequality, the government needs to tax the rich people more, and give poor people more money and more social services - education, food subsidies, health care.
To solve this issue we need to find a way to generate the amount of money lost by fewer people entering the workforce. Mainly because this is the only issue with the system, fewer people working which equals to social security’s budget to be low. One way to solve this issue would be to implement more taxes, or to ensure more security over its treasury. As long as the treasury is protected with its surplus in those accounts it should help secure future generations of retirees.