A common suggestion to "fix" the looming problem of Social Security insolvency is to Privatize the entire system. This proposal would mean significant changes to the "safety net" that millions of Americans rely on to survive.
Discussion Questions:
- What does "privatizing Social Security" actually mean?
- Explain the strongest argument for privatizing Social Security.
- Explain the strongest argument against privatizing Social Security.
- Where do you stand on the issue? Explain your perspective.
Use the following links in addition to others that you can find to help build your arguments.
26 comments:
Matt K
1. Privatizing Social Security means that Social Security would be moved to private accounts, letting the workers control their own retirement money.
2. The strongest argument as to why we should privatize Social Security is because retired people would have the freedom to invest their retirement money in the stock market possibly earning higher funds than with the government investing their money.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is investing retirement money is that it is complicated and risky because individuals can lose their retirement safety net through bad decisions of investing.
4. I believe people should be able to do what they want because it is their money and they should have the freedom to either invest or keep and save interest on their money. It is their fault if they lose their money through bad decisions.
Mary M.
Privatizing Social Security would replace the traditional Social Security system with a private retirement system. In a privatized Social Security system, each worker’s contributions would be invested into assets for their own retirement fund. Instead of an individual’s retirement being funded by the younger generation of workers, it would be funded by their own wages throughout their life, as a fraction of their wages would be put into the retirement fund.
The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that it will prevent the collapse of the current Social Security system. Since Social Security benefits are set to decline sharply starting in 2033 due to an aging American population, it is clear that the current system will not be sustainable forever. In order to allow for workers to receive a retirement fund, privatized Social Security is a potential solution to the problem. It would not be affected by an aging population, as each worker would be paying for their own retirement: one generation would not have to transfer money to another.
The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that traditional benefits from Social Security will decline sharply in a privatized system. Over the next 47 years, it is predicted that, under a privatized system, benefits would decline by 44%. Although this system would be easier to fund, it will not provide the same benefits to retirees.
While it is clear Social Security must change in order to remain sustainable, it is equally clear that privatization is not the answer. Not only will privatization almost halve the benefits of Social Security, it will be a very risky system. By allowing for retirement funds to be at the whim of the stock market, risky investments could cause major problems for many retirees, and would weaken the federal retirement system as a whole.
What does "privatizing Social Security" actually mean?
It means to have people personally own their own social security account, or retirement account, and they would be free to invest this money in the stock market. The theory of this is that people would be able to earn higher returns, and what they deposit is what they receive.
Explain the strongest argument for privatizing Social Security.
The strongest argument is that people are in control of their money, and it is seen as a more capitalist system. Instead of the government forcing us to save money to retire, people should be free to save whatever they want. People are against having money taken out of their checks in order to pay for another person’s retirement.
Explain the strongest argument against privatizing Social Security.
Social Security has more benefits than just giving people money. The money that is given to old people is usually spent and not invested, so it is re-dispersed into the economy. Also, the people that rely on Social Security are usually people that grew up in poverty, who probably wouldn't have saved any money if the government didn't do it for them.
Where do you stand on the issue? Explain your perspective.
I stand on the side that we should not privatize Social Security. Firstly, Social Security helps the economy because it puts money in the hands of people that spend it quickly. Secondly, privatizing social security would hurt the people who need it the most. Lastly, it has been an age-old practice to take care of the elderly in a society. Pope Francis, one of the most influential leaders in the world, says “a society that doesn't care for its elderly has no future”. It is our responsibility for us to care for our elderly, and privatizing social security would hurt more elderly than it would help. It may be more “fair” in a capitalist society if we privatized Social Security, but it is not fair in a moral society.
Dominique P.
1. “Privatizing Social Security” means to take the money that is taken out by taxes from a worker’s wage, and put it directly into that specific worker’s account, leaving a retirement plan for that worker alone. There would no longer be just a large fund given out to those who have already retired and it would change the whole system and idea of a “safety net.”
2. The best argument for privatizing Social Security is that it will give people contractual rights to their benefits, something that is missing from the current Social Security plan. In the 1960 US Supreme Court case, a legal immigrant who had contributed to the Social Security pool for 19 years was denied his benefits for being deported as a Communist party member. If we privatize the system, people cannot have their well-deserved assets taken from them.
3. The best argument against privatizing Social Security is that the privatization of Social Security will prove to be so costly that it will take away a large percent of the returns owed. In other countries, such as the UK, the management fees and marketing costs ate up to 43% of all expected returns on investments.
4. I believe that the Social Security system should remain public, but should be reformed in such a manner that both the benefits are decreased and the cost of the taxes is slightly increased. It may not solve the problems permanently, but it will definitely extend the date from 2033 to a date farther than that. I do not believe that it is right to take away the benefits from those who need it the most. Social Security also helps everyone and does not just directly affect the people who receive the money, but also helps boost the economy and thus keeps jobs and businesses functioning.
Tyler P Period 5
1.) To “privatize” Social Security would mean that the federal government would transfer the entire Social Security program, including the accounts and social security numbers of all its members, from public ownership (the federal government) to private ownership and control (private businesses or corporations). Privatization of Social Security would also see the removal of Social Security taxes for Americans and, instead, workers would be required to set aside a fraction of their wages to retirement funds.
2.) The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that the privatization would increase the rate of return that workers get on their retirement contributions. A workers rate of return would increase because, if workers were required to set aside a small amount of their wages to their retirement funds, upon retirement these workers could convert these funds into annuities. These annuities would be higher because this new system would allow a worker’s retirement contributions to be invested in private assets like stocks which yield a better return than the present system.
3.) The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that the amount of money a worker gets will depend on whether the market is in a recession or at a peak. So, if the market is in in a recession or downtrend, then the worker will lose some of their retirement benefits because the stock that their retirement money is invested in will lose value. This, over time, would cause an individual to approach their retirement age with fewer savings than expected, or with fewer savings then they might have had had the Social Security system not been privatized at all.
4.) Personally, I believe Social Security could be privatized and the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Social Security should be privatized mainly because the new privatized system would provide a much higher rate of return for the elderly retirees. Consequently, these retirees would be much better off, especially when compared to the current system, which does not provide the retirees enough money to efficiently and adequately live off of. Also, by privatizing the system, the Social Security pool will not run out in 2033, as anticipated, preventing, what could be, a very serious and costly issue.
Eric G
1. Privatizing Social Security means moving Social Security benefits to private accounts so that the receivers of the benefits can invest the money as they see fit.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that privatization would increase the income of elderly retirees who need it most by allowing them to invest their benefits.
3. The strongest argument against privatization Social Security is that investing retirement money involves a lot of risk and people could end up losing their savings in a bad investment. The money they receive is not guaranteed, thus is not truly a safety net as it is intended to be.
4. I think that there are better alternatives than to privatize Social Security benefits. I believe that removing the Social Security tax limit and making it a fully proportional tax would greatly help support the system. This will make it so the burden of social security doesn’t just fall on the lower and middle class.
1: What does “Privatizing Social Security” actually mean. Privatizing Social Security means that the money that normal social security applicants would be receiving will be deposited into a private account. Privatizing Social Security means that there is a much higher risk in retirement. This means that we “may” eventually get hit with a much higher debt for the nation. Whether or not Privatizing Social Security is beneficial is still unknown; however, economists are debating which would be better.
2: Explain the strongest argument for privatizing Social Security: Having a private retirement system could substantially increase the rate of return for the workers involved in a private retirement fund. Many people would feel while working that they are paying for themselves to suffice in the future. Instead of taking a portion out of your current paycheck and helping the elderly, you would be working to benefit yourself in the future. Although there may be a risk with privatization, you are ensuring you will have money for yourself in the future granted you work hard and are making a generous salary.
3: Explain the strongest argument against privatizing Social Security: One of the strongest arguments regarding why Social Security should not be privatized is that all these private accounts could dampen economic growth. Privatization could easily impact the citizens of the US for the worse being that this nation is becoming more diverse. Women, African Americans, and Latino’s who are currently shortchanged by the economic system could be severely impacted by the privatization of the Social Security system.
4. Where do you currently stand on the issue? I am not completely on one side but I feel that I am more for the privatization of Social Security. The fact that more people will be taking out of the “pool” by 2033 only means negative effects for those who are working hard during that time and would be receiving Social Security in the future. I feel as if children are helped more by privatization which is why some feel this way and the elderly would like to keep the system as it is. I don’t find it “fair” how the poor would be taking more then they put in and vice versa.
Makayla S.
1.What does "privatizing Social Security" actually mean?
Privatizing Social Security is a way for workers to privately make personal investment accounts and maintain their own retirement funds. It has the ability to boost national saving and workers rate of return. In order to make privatizing social security successful there must be a short-term consumption sacrifice to prevent future social security shortfalls.
2.Explain the strongest argument for privatizing Social Security.
The strongest argument for privatizing social security is that it operates as a pay-as-you-go system. This system allows retirees to invest in assets that finance their own retirement rather than depend on the contributions from the next generation of workers.The system benefits the economy as a whole because it provides growth in savings thus investment in the economy and a higher standard of living.
3.Explain the strongest argument against privatizing Social Security.
The strongest argument against privatizing social security is that investing all your retirement money is risky because individuals lose their retirement safety net through bad investments. Also, individuals who need the money most will not be able to get it because they do not have the money to invest for the future at the moment.
4.Where do you stand on the issue? Explain your perspective.
I believe in privatizing social security because it allows the economy to grow, and benefits retirees in allowing them to be responsible for their retirement investments. Privatizing social security will allow individuals to not have to rely on the next generation. They have the chance to fund themselves as they go and choose where they would like to invest.
1. Privatizing social security essentially creates separate retirement funds, as opposed to the traditional system in which money is taken from a pool of funds supplied by the taxes of workers.
2. Supporters of this notion to privatize the current system propose to place the current generation of workers’ money into investments in private assets. Therefore, the potential for return is higher, as these investments offer higher rates of return than does the current social security system. This benefit perpetuates into helping the entire economy grow as a whole, as these high returns on investments can be portioned to raise consumer spending.
3. Because these retirement funds under the new system are based on investments in the market, downturns in the economy or poor investment strategies could hurt these funds that workers rely on for their retirement
4. I believe the entire system of social security should be abolished, but not outright. The older generations rely too heavily on these funds which are meant only to provide a financial safety net. To eradicate the system, the rates given to retirees from social security should slowly decrease until it is marginal or nothing. Meanwhile, retirement funds in the form of 401k’s should be stressed by banking companies and should be offered at a growth rate marginally larger than that of inflation.
Brennan L.
1. Privatizing Social Security means that rather than paying taxes and having that money allocated into a collective pool used for today’s elderly, it would be put into private accounts. This would allow accounts to be inherited if that misfortune was to arise. Also, workers could “tap” into the account if they were to become disabled or reach the retirement age.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that privatization can allow people to invest their retirement contributions in private assets, such as stocks. This can yield a greater return on your investment and thus have money for retirement. This will also stimulate the economy by adding to the investment portion of the GDP. This will allow the economy to grow. The system we have in place now, is merely a transfer of money transaction. The money given by the current workers is then given to the elderly. The amount of money that the elderly is receiving is much less than what they could have collected had the money been invested. The money currently in Social Security is not growing through investment, so as more people start to live longer, more people are getting less money. Also, the current system puts you at a disadvantage if your life expectancy is short (yes, dying is bad). The privatization of the Social Security system will allow accounts to be inherited thus the money put into the Social Security is not lost and can be collected by other family members.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that the transition would be too costly. It would require the government to still provide the same benefits to those under Social Security, while starting the private accounts. This would cause workers to have to provide more money towards Social Security. Some would go to current retirees through the current Social Security system and some would go into a personal account so that your private Social Security account can start to accumulate money. Also, once the system has been privatized, the return on the investments in the Social Security accounts aren’t guaranteed. If they are invested, they are helping to grow the economy, however, not all investments turn a profit. This can then lead people to have less money in their accounts than what they put in to it. This diminishes the safety net effect when people are losing money that they plan on having in the future during retirement.
4. I personally stand somewhere in the middle. Privatization is good in that it can lead to higher rates of return, however, if an investment goes awry it can lead to a loss of money. Then there is less money available to you at retirement. With privatization, people won’t lose their investments once they pass. It can be inherited by family members, which can collect on it. However, with privatization, bad investments can lead to bad outcomes. If Social Security is privatized, then its safety net nature is eliminated. If you make bad investments, then you are out of luck and get a bad return. There is no money guaranteed to assist you through retirement. The current system is “guaranteed” money with the intention to assist people through old age and retirement. Also, the current system is faulted in that it benefits those with longer life expectancies, which may be tied to socioeconomic positions in society. In any case, the “pool” of money is running out, and a reform for Social Security needs to arise.
ZACH C
1)Privatizing social security means that people would be responsible for contributing to their own independent retirement investment accounts rather than having a set portion of their income deducted in order to receive retirement benefits from the government managed system.
2)Privatizing social security would not only allow for a greater return on investments, but private retirement investments/accounts would be an individual’s own property rather than the government’s. This would alleviate the foreseen issue of the government not being able to pay out promised benefits, for everyone would have full control of his/her accounts and investment earnings. Some would argue that privatization would increase economic inequities, but this assertion largely invalid. Since retirees that are wealthy tend to live longer than those that are poor, they end up collecting more in social security benefits. If retirement accounts were private property, individuals would be able to pass their savings on rather than completely losing-out on their deserved benefits.
3)If social security were completely done away with, and the government did not regulate retirement planning, many people would not save/invest an adequate amount or they wouldn’t do so wisely. People, especially those with lower incomes, would have more pressing or more immediate concerns than retirement, so they would suffer without social security or some sort of mandatory plan. Additionally, stocks and investment accounts are volatile. If there were an economic downturn under this type of system and stock prices were to fall, retirees would have less money to spend, which would not only harm them, but the entire economy would suffer and experience a “domino effect” of sorts.
4) Social security should definitely be privatized, but government becoming completely uninvolved in retirement planning is not a viable option. The government should set a minimum percentage of a person’s income that is required to be saved in some sort of investment account. Perhaps there could be government sponsored investment accounts that individuals would pay into, but they would be entitled to their own investments plus earnings at the time of retirement instead of receiving benefits funded by taxes on those that are currently working.
Victoria G.
1. “Privatizing Social Security” means moving social security benefits into private accounts and allowing the recipient to manage and grow the money by investing it. This would theoretically allow retirees to earn money at a higher rate than they would if just given funds from the government.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that it allows a more individualized control of the money. Firstly, it takes pressure off the government by relieving it of responsibility to manage individual citizens retirement accounts. Secondly, it allows citizens to use the assets the way they choose, which in the end will allow them to make more retirement freedom. Lastly, it is personalized to the retiree, because if they live a shorter life, they can give the assets to their heirs.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that there is very high risk. Firstly, putting people’s retirement funds at the whim of the stock market is unstable, and can leave an entire generation with no money, if something such as the 2008 stock market crash happens again. There is also risk in allowing people with little knowledge, or outdated knowledge, to invest in stocks. On top of that, having to learn about stocks and keep up with the stock market is a significant burden on retired people, who are in aging physical and mental conditions. Lastly, this opens retirees up to the risk of stock brokers who will be dishonest when investing their money.
4. In my opinion, it is too risky to privatize Social Security. Most Americans are not knowledgeable enough to invest the money in a way that will make it economically feasible to supplement their retirement.Although it may give the chance to earn more money, there is a great possibility that money will be lost and then more aid will need to be spent on welfare programs to support the people that lost the money, in the end not minimizing the cost of Social Security at all. Also, there will be a huge financial hurdle involved with setting up the privatized accounts because there has to be enough capital to give to each retiree upfront.
Julia S.
Privatizing “Social Security” means moving Social Security benefits into private accounts and allowing retirees the freedom to control their own retirement money through their own investment accounts. They could invest their retirement money in the stock market allowing them with the possibility of earning higher returns than what the government would originally provide them.
The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that by privatizing it, workers would receive larger pensions and the economy would be able to grow faster because money would be put back into America’s financial system through the investments. Each investment would contribute to financing each individual’s own retirement rather than having them depending on the next generation of workers and their contributions.
The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that each individual has a high risk of losing all of their retirement money in bad investments or untrustworthy stock brokers. With privatizing Social Security, more individuals approaching the age of retirement would realize they have a lot less savings than they had expected due to poor investment choices. In addition older people are not
I personally believe that privatizing Social Security would not be beneficial. There are too many risks and many people are not educated about investments and the stock markets. If people were to put any money they saved for retirement into the stock market, they could easily lose it all. The risk is too high. In addition the effect of privatizing Social Security would overall hurt the federal retirement system because the success of it is now in the hands of the unpredictable stock market.
Ryan DeBardelaben
1. Privatizing Social Security means that workers will have the freedom to control their own retirement money. People would be able to invest in the stock market however they want and not be restricted to government funds.
2. The best argument for privatizing Social Security is that there will be a much higher rate of return. There will be a higher rate of return because people would be able to invest into the stock market instead of government funds. “A medium income worker born on or after 1964 can expect a 1.93%-2.71% rate of return with the existing Social Security system. Privatizing Social Security will put more money in the pockets of retirees. From 1926 to 2002, returns from S&P 500 investments average 6.9%-9.0% “ (socialsecurity.procon.org). With a much higher rate of return people may actually be able to live off of social security, something that is almost impossible to do in today’s society.
3. The best argument against privatizing Social Security is that it would cost too much to set establish. “The transition costs of setting up new personal accounts while continuing to provide benefits to Social Security's current beneficiaries would require an extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion.” (socialsecurity.procon.org). This would cause current benefits to be reduced to make up for the cost of privatization.
4. I believe that Social Security should be privatized. With a significantly higher return on investment, people could actually live off of social security. Poor people are the ones that need the benefits the most and in today’s system they receive the least amount of benefits. Poor people generally live shorter than the wealthy so they do not have as much time to collect Social Security, even though they are the ones that need it the most. In a privatized system, how long you live will have no impact on how much benefit you receive. Right now, the Social Security system is failing. In 2033, the money in the Social Security “pool” will be empty. The argument that it will cost too much to start the privatizing system is moot because eventually the costs will be made back through the higher return in investment. The system is failing, it is not going to magically become better unless a change is made, and no change will come without a cost. Also, in this current system, once a person dies, no more money can be collected. With private accounts, the money in the account can be passed on to children of the person that died. In conclusion, with privatized Social Security, poor people will receive more benefits due to a higher return on investment, and they may actually be able to afford guacamole at Chipotle.
Veronica W
1. Privatization means that people using Social Security benefits would have the freedom to control their own retirement money and be able to invest with it. Privatization entails that Social Security would now be put into a private account rather than an account monitored by the pay-as-you-go system. Right now, the Social Security system generates its money from the taxes paid by the previous generation. With privatization, there will be no Social Security taxes and one’s retirement is entirely funded at the time they decide to retire. This will work by each worker’s assets financing his or her own retirement.
2.The strongest argument for privatization is the idea of a higher rate of return on investment. If individuals are now able to freely invest in financial assets, such as stocks, with their Social Security money, it will lead to a higher level of savings and investment in the overall economy. If more people are investing and saving, the economy will greatly benefit. This would further lead to more economic growth and prosperity and a higher standard of living for everyone.
3.The strongest argument against privatization is the idea that it is very difficult to completely switch systems without negatively affecting the elderly retirees at the moment. The system in place now can not be removed immediately because it would leave retirees with basically nothing. However, the younger generation can not be asked to continue paying taxes to support the retirees if the systems are to be switched in the future. This creates a major issue and would need to be solved before the government puts any plans into action.
4. I believe that privatization is a good idea; however, I do not have a firm opinion due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to completely switch the way things are run. I believe that Social Security should be privatized, yet I do not know if it is really possible. In order for privatization to happen, some people who heavily rely on Social Security will be negatively affected.
1. Privatizing Social Security essentially is letting working people not have a percentage of their money taken out to be thrown in the pool, instead it would be put into private accounts that allows the worker to control their own retirement money and invest it how they would like.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that it can allow retirees' to invest their own money how they want to, which could lead towards higher savings because they could make more money themselves than the government could.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is that people don't know how to make smart decisions about their money in a private account, which would lead people to be financially unstable and could be a strain on the economy.
4. I believe that we should yet should not privatize because it makes sense for someone who can handle money the right way and it would benefit them, but on the other side most of America can not make smart decisions with their money just based off the past decade.
Privatizing social security means moving social security funds into private accounts controlled by the individual.
The strongest argument for privatizing social security is that it can allow for a possible greater rate of return workers can obtain from their retirement contributions while also cutting down on government spending.
The strongest argument against privatization is that it will be too costly to get a privatized social security system started. Creating a new system is estimated to cost an extra 1-2 trillion dollars.
I think social security should definitely be privatized. It gives people the option to try and make a greater return with their money.If the government slightly regulates the system and prevents people from people from investing in highly volatile stocks or single stocks then risk is limited. Also these private social security companies would include some level of financial advisory as part of peoples social security contract with them that would not only help limit risk but create a huge amount of jobs in the financial sector.
Christopher Rudin
1. Privatizing social security would instead of having all of the money pooled into a large social security pool it would allow each individual person to have a private reserve that is for only themselves and their heirs.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing it would be that it can increase the return rate that retirees receive on their funds. The S&P 500 investment averaged a return rate that was 3 times as high as return rates from the current system.
3. The strongest argument against it would be that a risky investment puts a retirement into jeopardy. If there is ever another stock market crash like in 1929, a huge section of retirees would lose an enormous amount of money.
4. I believe that privatizing social security would be a smart idea in the long run. There could be some potential short term downfalls and it could be a little risky, but the potential payout is higher than the current system and once the transition is made it will provide a more stable system than is currently in place today.
1. To privatize Social Security means that the pay as you go system would be eliminated and replaced with a system in which workers would have to build up their own savings in individually owned and directed private accounts.
2. The strongest argument for the privatization of Social Security is that it can boost workers rate of return by allowing their retirement contributions to be invested in private assets. This would yield a higher potential rate of return.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing the system would be that individuals must bare a higher risk due to downturns in the economy or poor investing. Not everyone is educated enough to invest wisely and to assume that everyone is would be counterintuitive.
4. I personally believe that Social Security should not be privatized due to the fact that not everyone can make educated investments. However, i do believe that the system needs to be altered by raising the Social Security tax limit.
Zach T.
Privatizing Social Security means that the current public Social Security system would be moved into the hands of private companies, who would have much more power over your account. Currently, everyone is granted the "same" benefits (I know not everyone receives the same amount of money), but with a privatized Social Security system those with the funds to spend would find themselves benefiting much more unfairly from Social Security, which is not the goal of the system. However, by privatizing the Social Security system retired citizens would have much greater control over the money that they are given and thus could benefit more by investing the funds that they receive. Overall, I would argue not to privatize Social Security because the way the system is designed is not conducive with a private system. A private Social Security system would only put retirees at risk.
Danny Byrne
1) Privatizing social security means that money from social security will be moved into private accounts to be used by the owners how they please.
2) The strongest argument for the privatization of Social Security is that it would get rid of the current "Pay as you go" system that we currently have in place. This means that each worker's contribution would be invested in assets to finance his or her own retirement.
3) The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security is it would have a negative impact on the current generation funding social security as they would be paying for the benefits of others while trying to finance their own retirement which would lead to many financial problems for those going through this change.
4) I stand more on the side against privatizing Social Security. I think that Social Security funds are not something that can be gambled on in the hands of the ordinary investor/citizen. This money is far too valuable to many people to be put in such risk.
Matt Heller
1. Privatizing Social Security simply means that the person’s retirement fund is in his or her own accounts.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that people will have the ability to invest their money to try and increase their retirement funds in ways such as stocks, bonds or even options.
3. The strongest argument against Privatizing social security is the risk. If we make this change in social security people who don’t know how to make money on their existing funds could end up running out of money or losing it all in wrong investments.
4. I believe that privatizing social security is would be the right decision. Although it can be risky, it is a system that benefits and rewards the smartest investor, which is how it should be. People should have the freedom to invest and make their own financial choices.
1. Privatizing Social Security would mean to remove it from the federal governments hands and place it as a private business or corporation. This would move all the accounts to a private business and workers would not be taxed on it but may have to set aside fractions of wages toward retirement.
2. The strongest reason for privatizing Social Security would be that the workers would receive a much higher rate of return on their investments with their retirement money.
3. The strongest argument against privatizing Social Security would be that lower income workers would not be focused on retirement and would not have a safety net to save them if such things were to happen like a fall in stocks, or if they do not plan rightly.
4. I believe that Social Security right now is a great program but as 2033 comes it will be a pointless and non beneficial system to the U.S. as people will not receive as much as they put in. Untill then I think its fine. But then in 2033 there needs to be changes.
Jon C
Privatizing social security means that instead of government providing a safety net for people by putting their money into government accounts, they would then be put into private accounts. These accounts are then able to be used for personal investment.
One benefit of privatizing social security is that it would prevent this collapse of the system that is expected in the future.
One argument against privatizing social security would be that these personal investments could end up in severe loses and therefor defeats the purpose of the safety net social security provides.
I believe that those who choose to should be able to privatize their own accounts. People would opt in to this system on their own risk and there would be no backlash on government.
Arman A.
1. Privatizing Social Security means that Social Security would be personal accounts for each personal, making that person in charge of their funds for the future by making investments and investing their own money.
2. The strongest argument for privatizing Social Security is that people would have the ability to invest their money in the stock market to potentially gain a bigger return for the future than the government would provided them.
3. The strongest argument agains privatizing Social Security is the risk of investment. The persons retirement funds are based on the stocks invested and state of the economy. If the person has made a poor decision with their funds and loses money, they might not have a safety net for their retirement that the government would have provided them with.
4. I believe in privatizing Social Security because it allows money to flow into the economy through investors. Although it holds people more responsible for their investments, Our economy is founded off of Capitalism, which reinforces this idea of you make good investments, you gain a big return on your investment. You don't, figure it out. It is not the governments responsibility.
Dan R
1.Privatizing Social Security allows people in the workforce to control their own retirement money by investing it however they choose. This would allow individuals to choose the risk they wish to take when investing their retirement money, and would allow Social Security to continue to run indefinitely. While increasing the risk of losing retirement money, it also allows people to control their own future and make extra money if they invest well.
2.Public Social Security will eventually fail, and privatizing it can eliminate this threat. People will also have the opportunity to take whatever size risk they want when investing their money. There is no clear end to the private system, as it works on an individual basis. Public Social Security is also not enough money to live on, while private social security has the potential to earn enough money to live on.
3.Privatizing Social Security removes the guarantee of social security, which could lead to an inability for some people to retire in their 60s. People could lose their retirement money, and would have to continue working indefinitely. This would also make it harder for young people to find jobs, since some people would remain in the workforce for longer. Older people who are laid off would then drain money from government programs for the poor, rather than public social security which they paid into.
4. I think that social security should remain public, but the $117,000 ceiling for paying into the program should be removed. Social Security should be treated more like a tax used to support society as a whole instead of a personal retirement fund. I believe that there is too much risk involved with privatizing social security, and that it could lead to people acting irresponsibly with their money. The reason public social security does not work is that people expect to receive every dollar they pay in to the system, rather than paying in for the greater good of society.
Post a Comment