Social Security
A proposal to change the program
Reducing Benefits: This can be done in various ways. Monthly benefits can be reduced by minimizing cost of living adjustments or by minimizing the primary insurance amount (PIA) for a certain average indexed monthly earnings (AIME). Other proposals include targeting reductions towards high-income retirees. Benefits can also be reduced by increasing the retirement age or imposing full taxes on social security benefits. These benefit reduction proposals are some of the simplest and cheapest to implement. If future clients expect lower benefits, they are expected to save more or work longer; all of which will have a positive effect on the economy (Midgley, 2006).
Complete privatization: one of the radical proposals is to erase the social security system and encourage individuals to save in their accounts held by private investment companies. Owners of accounts will have great discretion over their decision of investment and any balances retained after death will be passed to heirs. This proposal is likely to increase employees' relationship to their retirement benefits thus motivating individual saving and responsibility. A full privatization will also eliminate the subsidization of one-earner couples.
The most effective changes
Complete privatization will enable employees to divert a percentage of their salary taxes to private accounts. This will demand levying a new tax to continue to pay social security benefits to individuals who retired at the time of privatization. This means that privatization will be a viable substitute, producing efficacy gains. Recent studies on the issues shows that privatizing in a manner that reduces distortions of labor supply to current and future generations will not hurt initial retirees. This will be a Pareto improvement. The most common approaches to privatization will reduce distortions because they offer long-term...
Similarly, such an implicit wealthy tax can give participants a higher return on their future contributions. Therefore, this will decrease the effective tax rate on their supply of labor. On the contrary, the efficiency of the benefits of the U.S. will exceed projections although there must be caution because this approach ignores the costs associated with the personal accounts.
Do you feel society owes our older population monetary and medical assistance? Why or why not?
Even though the society owes the older monetary and medical assistance, the current financial crisis, coupled with the high unemployment rate and the ageing baby Boomer, there is insufficient money derived from pay tax revenue to pay the older population such assistance. This has left many Americans worried about the future of the social security especially as they retire. For social security to give our older population monetary and medical assistance, Congress needs to figure out a strategy to show up the deficit in the program. If not, it will have to pay out reduced benefits (Brown, Liebman & Wise, 2009).
Instead of the older population, relying on social security as a way of medical and monetary assistance, they should depend on their own savings and investments. Individuals must seek ways to ensure they protect their future and have a future that does not include social security. Forecasts by the social security board show that there must be enough funding coming into the system to cater for at least half of the expected benefits by 2030. Therefore, it…
Slow the growth of traditional Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-class Americans. The benefits of the wealthiest Americans (those who earn more than $100,000 a year) would grow "only" at the rate of inflation. In this way nobody would suffer a true cut -- even the richest Social Security recipients would be guaranteed at least the same, inflation-adjusted level of benefits today's retirees receive. Meanwhile, because benefits for the
Social Security can be an effective tool in public personnel administration and can benefit common American a great deal if used effectively. Therefore it is imperative to look into the future prospects of the programs and remove loopholes and bottlenecks in its future implementation. Future Under the Social Security plan government is collecting more money today then it is paying out as benefits to citizens. The surplus money remains safe in
Social Security Reform Can Social Security Be Reformed? Doing nothing to fix our Social Security system will cost us, as well as our children and grandchildren, an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be. -- White House Press Release, January 11, 2005 Today, Social Security is the largest of all government programs and has represented
Social Security System Social security reforms Social Security Reform In recent years, social security reform has emerged to be more of a political issue than a social concern and it is within the public domain that through the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform commissioned by President Obama in 2010, there has been a heightened congressional interest in this matter. This commission was charged with the responsibility of coming up with recommendations
Social Security Administration In 1935, Social Security was designed as a program to provide a safety net for those who are disabled and as supplemental retirement income. When it was first introduced, it was designed based upon the total amount of individual earnings during their career. As time went by, the program was expanded to include spouses, the children of those who are deceased and the disabled. These transformations meant that
Social Security The Original Concept of Social Security The concept of social security as originally conceived by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was that Americans should enjoy security at home, and they should expect to have a secure livelihood, and they should also have social insurance as "…a minimum of the promise that we can offer to the American people" (Houser, et al., 2014). The President also said, on June 8, 1934, that