Mr. Yang
Should Social Security Be Privatized?
As a 74-year-old retired teacher in San Pablo of California, Roberta Tim Quan said that during their working years, she and her husband saved money and paid tax, but their retirement planning of travel and family visits cannot come true. As Quan recounted to a congressional hearing last fall, her husband needed expensive medical care for Alzheimer's disease. Utility and food bills were on the rise, as well. She cannot afford their retirement plans anymore (Billitteri 2008). In the U.S., for retirees their situations after retirement are not as good as thirty years ago. During a long period of working, workers paid their responsibility into social security account; however, after retirement, they cannot afford to live. That is not fair. Social security has supported retirees, widows and disabled individuals with a trust income for almost seventy years. However, the social security system's pay-as-you-go funding will be overwhelmed by the retirement of millions of baby-boom workers in the next fifteen years. Recently, a lot of people argue that social security should be privatized, and people can get money from that account after retirement.
In his second inaugural address in 2005, Former President George W. Bush claimed that workers under 55 be allowed to divert 4 percentage points of their 12.4 percentage annual social security payroll tax into personal investment accounts (Cooper 2004).This approach would bring some advantages of the superior growth prospects offered by the stock market to participants. Some proponents argue that social security should be invested into private accounts and give retirees more benefits. Unless changes are made to the taxpayer-funded system, social security will begin paying more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes in about 15 years (Mullins 2009). Nowadays, there is an argument about social security reform: should social security be privatized? As the largest retirement
As a 74-year-old retired teacher in San Pablo of California, Roberta Tim Quan said that during their working years, she and her husband saved money and paid tax, but their retirement planning of travel and family visits cannot come true. As Quan recounted to a congressional hearing last fall, her husband needed expensive medical care for Alzheimer's disease. Utility and food bills were on the rise, as well. She cannot afford their retirement plans anymore (Billitteri 2008). In the U.S., for retirees their situations after retirement are not as good as thirty years ago. During a long period of working, workers paid their responsibility into social security account; however, after retirement, they cannot afford to live. That is not fair. Social security has supported retirees, widows and disabled individuals with a trust income for almost seventy years. However, the social security system's pay-as-you-go funding will be overwhelmed by the retirement of millions of baby-boom workers in the next fifteen years. Recently, a lot of people argue that social security should be privatized, and people can get money from that account after retirement.
In his second inaugural address in 2005, Former President George W. Bush claimed that workers under 55 be allowed to divert 4 percentage points of their 12.4 percentage annual social security payroll tax into personal investment accounts (Cooper 2004).This approach would bring some advantages of the superior growth prospects offered by the stock market to participants. Some proponents argue that social security should be invested into private accounts and give retirees more benefits. Unless changes are made to the taxpayer-funded system, social security will begin paying more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes in about 15 years (Mullins 2009). Nowadays, there is an argument about social security reform: should social security be privatized? As the largest retirement