Essay on the social security

Many vulnerable recipients end up finding social security as a financial protection to improve their low incomes based on low earnings especially that sector of the social community that somehow grows to be underprivileged as disabled workers, widows or even young survivors on behalf of deceased workers. The aim of providing them with social security is solely to protect their low earnings under advantageous progressive formula to increase the ratio of benefits associated with minimum wages of workers as per their major life contribution to work which should equal the poverty line. And these benefits are supposed to increase gradually once a low-waged worker gets registered for the social security in order to cross above the poverty line. The common example includes the sufferings of widows who have to go through a minimum 30% drop in living wage standards after the death of their husbands. The social security then works to increase their benefits even if it’s a widow or a widower just to make them survive with at least three-fourth of what they could jointly have received as a couple. This increased ratio is to facilitate the survivor for having finances as half of the couple’s benefits and reduction in combined benefits if both would have been alive. Similarly, disabled workers have the advantage of earning total benefits for themselves as we as their families as the purpose of social security is to lift benefits for workers who are either disabled or who have shifted their disability in older ages. The aim is to reduce disabled beneficiaries emerging more often than the rate of inflation leading to increased benefits for them effecting the growth of the economy.

As of now, currently there is no protection set against unexpected high inflation rates for the years to come as if the inflation grows severe, it will affect the workers with significant decline of their adjusted benefits. History has experienced such inflations that have eventually reduced the benefits of deserving groups to almost 25% if not less. In order to overcome this, cost-neutral benefits should be explored more often. The opponents of the surveillance of social security make the low-waged workers to invest in their personal accounts from the amounts of social security taxes which actually risk their own private investments. This negative appraisal has achieved a boost in recent years because of the un-predictive market economy for which everyone tries to think of rather long term plans as private investments remain safe for long periods of time. This can be understood by the simple phenomenon of increasing stock market rates where if a worker invests; he would still be able to earn something with average return per year on behalf of supposedly corporate bonds or any other private investment. For example, workers who had invested half of his social security under payroll taxes years ago would be retiring with double or even more of the income than merely depending upon social security. Even in worst cases due to any economic condition of the state, if the worker would have invested all of his social security, he would actually be getting a lot more over corporate bonds than just the traditional social security income. But it shouldn’t be denied that private investments can even turn to be too risky in contrast with social security that already holds up running cash-flows and its deficits and sometimes might also face heavy shortfalls in future which can definitely make it difficult to fulfill promised benefits to the workers hence workers shouldn’t be stopped from making personal investments and accounts to bring reform in the troubled in the troubled system.

This reform in the social security also amends the filthy policy agendas that worked for cutting taxes for rich and rather slashing benefits for poor – a new revolution needs to be considered on the side that call for expansion in social security. This not only brings revolutions and benefits for social security holders but also adds to the reliability of the state governments proving to be doing better than private sectors. Most advanced nations rely heavily on private sectors than their own governments and question the government’s beneficiary work for their general public as in doing good for them and lessen the government’s hold on major parts of the economy. A classic example to this includes the private sector’s eagerness to convert the health department into privatized sector just because the government keeps a hold on basic health insurances for the public good and the opposing sector merely wants it to be private insurance purchase voucher which will only lead the whole system towards a wrong direction. As medic cares involve less bureaucracy, the aids are substantially cheaper as compared to private insurances and even work more efficiently. Similarly, retirement security by the government is another example of government’s superior hold in social security. Because in the real world, people tend to save a little for their post-retirement life and rather keeps on making investments in their young ages which only maximizes the profits of private investment advisors while it worsens the individual’s savings ratio. To combat this, workers must be made compulsory to pay for their social security funds and it shouldn’t be made a voluntary act as the purpose is solely to generate total contribution of social security for the workers and not someone else. This way, the workers will eventually realize how beneficial social security is for them and how valuable they should be considering it rather than wasting the major part into local investments from which the profit is not even certain. If they get profit, that would be great but if they lose, they will ultimately loose all of their savings with no cash flow in hand.