Teachers and Students > Debates

Should social security be privatized?

<< < (2/2)

astarmathsandphysics:
In the UK millions of people are 2disabled" because being so means they dont have to work. If they had this status withdrawn 95% of them could find work to do and charity and family could do the rest.
Social security is a soul destroyer

$tyli$h Executive:
Agree that its a soul destroyer and reduces incentives. But some people are REALLY badly disabled. Like blind people who need much help. If social security was provided by the private sector like keeping special seats for them or enabling teleworking, they would still be discriminated relative to the able people unless government provided them or passed on certain laws. Its not their fault that they are disabled.

As far as social security payments, I doubt if they would be provided by the private sector at all. It may reduce incentives to seek prosperity, but its alright if it is kept to a minimum. This will give the unemployed a chance to look for a job and at the same time, will create incentive because of the low payment.

astarmathsandphysics:
charities would provide them and there could be laws to enforce equality of opportunity so they can get jobs.

Angel Of Love:
This privatization would effect a lot of people too like this article says:

The Social Security Board of Trustees 1998 report estimates that income from FICA payroll taxes will become insufficient to meet all the payment obligations of the Social Security funds in the year 2013. According to one recent report by the Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies, this is of particular concern to African Americans because Social Security payments account for nearly 47% of the income of elderly African Americans (65 and older) and have helped alleviate poverty among them. Without these government cash transfers, 68% of elderly African Americans today would have incomes below the poverty threshold.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page