The social security system is a program that is owned by the government meant to provide for the basic needs of people who are retired. It primarily depends on the tax paid by workers to the federal government (Kumru 757). The workers usually receive benefits after they retire. A compulsory private pension system, on the other hand, involves workers deciding on how to invest their contributions so that it can provide them with benefits after they retire. In this respect, a compulsory private pension should not replace the existing public security system.
The public social security system is facing a lot of issues. As a result, many people want to substitute it with a system that is private. However, they forget that these issues can be addressed. For instance, if someone curbs the excessive spending that is associated with the baby boomers generation, the system will still be functional in the future (Barr 16). One shortcoming of the private security system is that the workers cannot be guaranteed that the contributions they make to the social security system will be moved into their accounts. Some of it may get stolen in the process. Consequently, there the workers would end up receiving little or no benefits after they retire. Therefore, it is not guaranteed that the workers will get better services once the public security system is substituted with a compulsory private system.
Substituting the present public security system with a private pension will not avail better benefits to people. It is true that the current social security system would continue to decrease the benefits it offers to retired workers. However, the social security system still guarantees individuals with monthly gains and income. If the social security system were privatized, the returns in the stock market could not be guaranteed given that the stock market has its risks (Orenstein 66). Consequently, in case the returns fluctuate, people may not receive their monthly benefits and income. It is, therefore, illogical to replace the social security system with a mandatory private pension. Objectively privatization cannot be used to address the issues being experienced in the social security system. It will only increase federal debt and retirement risks in that; the process will only divert resources to personal accounts which will cause a more significant solvency issue. The gap will be filled through cutting benefits from the social security system and increasing the debt on taxpayers.
In light of the discussion above, I support the motion that a compulsory private pension should not substitute the existing public security system. It is true that the current social security pension has its challenges. It is, however, possible to save this system. For instance, the Congress should raise the payroll taxes of social security system to prevent the system from going bankrupt. In as much as the economy of the nation would be affected, a mandatory private pension will affect it more given that it increases the federal tax. Replacing the social security system with a private compulsory pension is, therefore, not a great idea to subscribe. The discussion above highlights some of the issues that a mandatory private pension will rise. It can, therefore, be deducted that extraordinary efforts should be made to save the public security system rather than substituting it with a mandatory private pension entirely.