Mr. Friedman wanted to privatize social security because the poor were not able to put enough money towards benefits for retirement. He also says that programs funded for the poor were seen as charity and that they would become unfunded and dissipate. Every program except Medicare and Social Security is vulnerable. And now, we have turned to the rich to fund these programs. The United States has one of the best social insurances but it does a terrible job at closing the income gap and are losing political support. What do you think we should do in order to make social security program, or any program in the U.S., more worthy and dependable. How can remove the stereotypes associated with certain programs?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/patching-up-the-social-safety-net.html?ref=economy&_r=0
3 comments:
I think that a dual system in which people have an option of whether to use a private social security program vs. a public one. For example a wealthier person could choose to use a private program in which he/she would receive higher ROI.
This is such a sensitive issue in the US due to the large population of the boomers and peoples sense of entitlement. I think Professor Gitter does a good job of informing the class that the elderly are better off than the young. Data supports these notions. Public funding should be diverted from elderly and given to areas where more struggle. That being said, I believe privatizing would generate much better returns, but the need for safety and liquidity hampers the ability to make a swift change.
I think privatization is the way to go, but no transition would be smooth. Unfortunately, our generation will be paying into something they'll never get back with the current system. Happened to the lost generation in Japan too, who kept giving under the assumption that they would see the returns, but they never did.
Post a Comment