The current Social Security system in the United States is how retired citizens in America protect their income as they retire. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) reports that about 62 percent of beneficiaries receive their income from Social Security, and without the program over 40 percent of the elderly would become impoverished. The system operates as a pay-as-you-go service in which American workers in which the federal government becomes responsible for their retirement payouts once they claim their benefits placed in a separate account they would control. But some lawmakers want to shift the responsibility of who handles workers' social security. Lawmakers wonder if they could improve social security by diverting social security benefits towards investing in Wall Street. As a result, the amount of benefits workers would get would be dependent on the value of their investments in a free market economy. While the main benefit would be that workers would be able to shift whoever handles their social security benefits to someone they can trust more personally, the investors they would choose would encourage them to gamble their social security benefits towards private investments. As Max Richtman puts it in his article arguing against privatization of social security on CNBC, "As the proportion of private investments increased, the amount of worker's defined Social Security benefit would decrease--until it reached what could only be considered a poverty-level amount". An example of the failings of privatizing social security can be shown in Chile, which privatized their social security program in 1981. It became somewhat successful, but the program plunged once the 2008 financial crisis, which caused pensions to generate insufficient amounts of social security contributions to protect workers' retirement benefits (AARP, "Chile's Experience With The Privatization of Social Security"). Social Security is a very delicate system for workers because it is the money they will have to rely on once they retire. The system, of course, is not perfect, especially when retirees live very long. So, of course the system needs to adapt. But shifting the responsibility of whomever handles workers' Social Security is not a sufficient answer. Privatization would lead to many workers losing their retirement funds over bad investments, thus preventing them from retiring. CITATIONS Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “Privatization Is Really a Plan to Dismantle Social Security.” CNBC, 26 Mar. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/privatization-is-really-a-plan-to-dismantle-social-security.html. “Myths and Realities About Social Security And Privatization.” NCPSSM, 16 Dec. 2019, www.ncpssm.org/documents/social-security-policy-papers/myths-and-realities-about-social-security-and-privatization. Rix, Sara E. “Chile’s Experience With The Privatization Of Social Security.” AARP, Public Policy Institute, Aug. 1995, assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/ib23_chile.pdf. “What Would Privatized Social Security Mean for Americans?” Investopedia, 2 Jan. 2020, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-would-privatized-social-security-mean-americans.asp.

**Converting Social Security so that it's as gamble ridden as the stock market could be a disaster, but it could also be the answer to its looming insolvency.** The U.S. is facing a troubling future if the social security system remains a pay-as-you-go framework. However, there is a possible alternative, which would be to fully or partially [privatize social security](https://www.thebalance.com/pros-and-cons-of-privatizing-social-security-4159842). Essentially, this would make it so that the federal government is no longer solely responsible for a worker's retirement fund. Instead, it would be up to the aforementioned worker to have either complete or partial control of their own account and how they invest their benefits. Here are a few pros and cons to this option: _CONS_ → The [process of putting a private system](https://www.brookings.edu/research/privatizing-social-security-the-troubling-trade-offs/) in place would require policymakers to find an astronomical amount of funding to support liabilities to workers. → The value of a [taxpayer’s contribution](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-would-privatized-social-security-mean-americans.asp) would fluctuate in accordance to the value of their market investments. _PROS_ → Workers would be responsible for their own financial foundation, [lowering government expenditures](https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/07/16/the-pros-and-cons-of-privatizing-social-security.aspx). → The opportunity to invest and monitor one’s own account could result in a [higher return](https://smartasset.com/retirement/privatize-social-security) than what would be received via social security. While privatizing this system could potentially stop it from collapsing, it's unlikely to happen. This is because in order to privatize social security, [bipartisan cooperation](https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/07/16/the-pros-and-cons-of-privatizing-social-security.aspx) of Capitol Hill would be required. So, unless we’re an hour away from this federal government-funded program’s impending fallout, it will continue to have a steady life as just a discussion topic.

**Privatizing social security may not provide as much security to one’s income as suggested.** • The creation of private social security accounts means that the trust funds will be subject to the market forces operating in Wall Street. As a result, there is [no guaranteed amount](https://socialsecurity.procon.org/) of retirement income. This negatively impacts generations who work through major financial crises. In light of this, Millennials and Generation Z are likely to be more detrimentally affected by the privatization of social security by having to live through the ripple effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the ongoing pandemic and the forecasted threat that climate change poses to the economy. • Moreover, the transition to private social security accounts may actually [hinder](https://www.ncpssm.org/documents/social-security-policy-papers/myths-and-realities-about-social-security-and-privatization/) the extent of choice that people have over their finances. This is because as wealthier people take their money out of social security and into private accounts, the amount of funds left for social security shrinks. Consequently, poorer people may be forced to move their assets into private accounts, leaving them to be exploited by the forces of Wall Street.