Neutral Politics is a community dedicated to evenhanded, empirical discussion of political issues. It is a space to discuss policy and the tone of political debate. Is this a subreddit for people who are politically neutral?
Bush repeatedly has emphasized that one of his foremost second-term priorities will be to transform Social Security fundamentally. Enacted in and amended many times since-including major changes in Social Security provides benefits to workers and their family members upon retirement, disability, or death.
President Bush wants to change the system so that the amount that each worker collects from Social Security upon retirement instead would hinge on the size of investments in his or her own personal account. After that, funding would be sufficient to provide about 70 percent of currently promised benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office, perhaps more realistically, recently projected that the reserves would last until and would be able to pay about 80 percent of current benefits thereafter.
Much is at stake in this debate. More than 96 percent of workers pay Social Security taxes and thereby are entitled to collect benefits from the program.
More than 47 million Americans today receive checks from the Social Security system.
For one in five, it is their only income. That insurance has been essential in even the best of times, and will be all the more important in an increasingly global economy with large and growing federal budget and trade deficits. Here are twelve reasons why less costly, less risky, and less painful changes should be considered instead: Of the 45 million Americans who collect payments from the Social Security program, over one-third almost 17 million are not retired workers.
Among those currently receiving Social Security payments are 5 million spouses and children of retired and disabled workers, 7 million spouses and dependent children of deceased workers, and 5 million disabled workers.
Proposals to privatize Social Security involve shifting some of the money financing the current insurance program into investment accounts assigned to each worker.
Simple arithmetic suggests that every dollar shifted from Social Security programs to personal accounts is a dollar less to provide guaranteed income to the 37 percent of beneficiaries who are not retired workers. In the principal proposals put forward by the Commission, the reduction in disability benefits was draconian, with cuts ranging from 19 percent to The commission itself somewhat disavowed this aspect of its proposals, suggesting that a subsequent commission or other body that specializes in disability policy might revise how its plans apply to the disabled.
Orszag Brookings have noted that the disabled would have limited ability to mitigate the effects of these benefit reductions by securing income from individual accounts.
One reason is that their individual accounts often would be meager, since those who become disabled before retirement age may have relatively few years of work during which they could make contributions to their accounts.
Second, under the commission proposals, disabled beneficiaries like all other beneficiaries would not be allowed access to their individual accounts until they reached retirement age. It is difficult to imagine how any Social Security privatization plan can avoid significant cuts in those essential protections.
Social Security is funded by a flat tax of About four out of five of those tax dollars go immediately to current beneficiaries, and the remaining dollar is used to purchase U.In fact, in its ad titled “Talked,” which aired through much of September, the DSCC shows a clip of Ernst saying, “Yes, I have talked about privatizing Social Security,” editing out the.
We can't guarantee that under privatized social security, no one will lose everything they need to survive depending on whether they retire around the time of a great recession/depression.
We can guarantee that no one will lose their retirement insurance if we adequately reform the social security system in place today.
trade-offs between social insurance and wealth creation; whether the program represents (or is perceived as) a charitable safety net (entitlement) or earned benefits; and Such systems are referred to as 'privatized.' Currently, the United and other members put forth the idea that Social Security funds should themselves be invested in.
REASON #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security’s financing problem worse, not better. Social Security is funded by a flat tax of percent of each worker’s wage income, up to $90, in , split evenly between employers and employees.
Social Security Privatization - Should Social Security Be Privatized?
Privatizing Social Security: The Troubling Trade-Offs Any discussion of reform should begin by recognizing that the current retirement system is already a . Social security should not be privatized because it would open all kinds of doors for fraud and theft. The social security system should not be privatized. A company is a non-entity which means it has the same rights as a person but all too often when there is corruption within that company, no one has to pay the consequences. Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the percent taxes from every worker out .
Daylight Savings Time - Should the United States Keep Daylight Saving Time? they "would also be free to choose whether to exercise the personal account option or stay entirely in the old Social Security framework.". This Urban Institute fact sheet provides answers to such questions as whether family benefits offered through Social Security now are still relevant today and whether Social Security is .