The Social Security Act

The social security act was drafted by the president’s committee on economic security during the Roosevelt’s first term under Frances Perkins and was passed by the congress as a section of the new deal. The main objective of the act was to attempt to limit the dangers in the modern America that involved the aspects such as unemployment, old age, poverty and the issue of widows and orphans. Therefore, when President Roosevelt signed the social security act, he became the first United States president to advocate for and show support for the assistances to the elderly and the poor. During the past congresses that have been held in the United States in relation the issue of the social security act in the United States. Several have been passed and at the same time several have been rejected, among the current legislations include the H.R. 4529 social security act, the representatives Paul Ryan introduced the H.R. 4529 act by the name the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 on January 27 (Jed, 2010).

The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 was a roadmap for the future of the United States of America future act of 2010. This act entailed the personal social security savings program, the advanced indexing for the benefits old individuals and spouses, the improvement of minimum benefits, an amendment to the increase in the normal retirement age and the self settling social security transition fund. The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 is a proposal at a state level due to the fact that its intentions are that of regulating and standardizing the interests of the of the interests of a given population of individuals at a given state of the United States of America (Winston, 2006).

The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 is a legislation that has the goals of provision of health care reforms, job training, the social security system and the tax code in individuals and in business. This would be implemented by ensuring that workers who have the age of 55 years or younger in the years 2012 will redirect a piece of their workforce tax to the contributions to individual accounts in a voluntarily manner. From the year 2012 top the year 2021, the workers would be permitted to retransmit 2% of their taxable salaries to a base amounting to $10,000 in 2012, indexed to ordinary wage progress afterwards which would be followed by a 1% of the taxable earnings that are remaining in each account of an individual. Overtime, the sum of Social Security funds that could be redirected to the accounts owned individually would rise. The legislation had a proposal that from the year 2022 to the year 2031, the workers redirection would be at a rate of 4% in all the taxable earnings and a base quantity and 2% of remaining taxable salaries. From the year 2032 to 2041, workers would be permitted to redirect 6% of taxable salaries up to the base sum and 3% of remaining taxable salaries. For all the calendar years after the year 2041, workers would be permitted to redirect 8% of taxable salaries up to the base sum and 4% of remaining taxable salaries accounts owned individually (Winston, 2006).

The values of this legislation act

Individuals who took part in the process of the personal savings account would get the guarantee and the assurance that that the persona; savings account balance at annuitization would not be less than their aids that have accumulated as a result of inflation. This legislation act would also have the values of the provision for special general revenue transfers as required in order to assure trust fund solvency and too in provision of special transfers to the general fund of the treasury that would ensure an offset of any prior general revenue transfers as far as the trust fund solvency is maintained (Maynard, 2010).

The social conditions surrounding the roadmap for the future of the United States of America future act of 2010

The Ryan proposal has a lot of social challenges that are surrounding this legislation, these includes the different standards of lives that are present among the both the old and the young.. This proposed act is aimed at eliminating most of the Medicaid in the health insurance in the children. This program will ensure that families from the low income families get assistance and the privilege of their children get aces to quality Medicaid and health insurance just like the children from the high income families. Most are the societies that have people who live a life that has no tomorrow, these people have either disabilities and thus can not do much or either they live below the poverty lines. When it comes to the provision of Medicaid and health services, the low income families in the United States are much hit since the new tax credit plus the low levels of income is much smaller to buy the comprehensive health insurance (Maynard, 2010).

Under the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 by Ryan, his plan is majoring on poor children who loose a vey vital Medicaid benefit by the name the early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment services, these services ensure that these individual from a poor social status get regular and comprehensive health screenings plus have the access to full cover to for all the necessary Medicaid (Stanley, 2007).

Historical links the act of The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010

A previous public policy that has much links to the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 is the legislation by the number S. 857/H.R. 1776 and by the name (Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, the link between the two acts of the public is based on the fact that the two legislations have similarities. The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005 was also a legislation that was presented by Paul Ryan, he called it a companion measure (H.R. 1776) on April 21, the year 2005. The measures of this act were to permit workers under the age of 55 to redirect a percentage of payroll taxes to charitable accounts of individuals. From the year 2006 to 2015, workers would have been permitted to redirect 5% of covered salaries up to a base sum ($10,000 in 2006, indexed to salary progress afterwards) and2.5% of remaining protected salaries to individual accounts. Beginning n the year 2016, workers would have been permitted to readdress 10% of covered salaries up to the total sum and 5% of remaining covered salaries to the individual accounts.

Workers who were taking part in the individual accounts would receive an issue of the “benefit credit certificate” or the recognition bond to reflect the value of benefits accumulated under the customary system. The recognition bond was to be a certificate that would have been redeemed at retirement, despite the value of accumulated benefits would have been reduced to replicate the workforce taxes redirected to the employee’s account the measures would have provided account members a double monthly payment as a result of traditional benefit plus annuity benefits. At least thus would have been equal to benefits scheduled under current law which necessitates that workers choosing not to partake in individual accounts owned individually would have received traditional Social Security profits. The measures would have been a provision of six indexed investment accounts, inclusive of a nonpayment “lifecycle investment account” with a probable normal investment combination of 65% parities and 35% fixed income mechanisms. Once the worker’s account balance stretched to $25,000 (indexed to inflation), a supplementary investment choices would have become available to him or her (Stanley, 2007)

By critically looking at this act, it is looks like the mother of the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010. This is due to the fact that it has been founded and by the same individual by the name Paul. This is a clear indication of the need of this act to be passed as a bill since after five years; a revised version of this act is brought into debate by the same individual (Jagadeesh, 2010).

Supporters of the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010

The possible supporters of the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 are likely to be human rights activists and some of the major politicians. These are the individuals that represent the common individual that is not in a position to present his or her grievances the higher table of the social security acts. Politicians who both the include the republicans and the democrats are likely to support this act in favor of their people back at their home aces who live in social surroundings that do not favor them to receive quality Medicaid and fundamental factors that are necessary such  as the comprehensive health insurance. Human tights activists are on the other hand much likely to support this bill as it has the implementations that are in favor of the individuals who live below the poverty lines. Therefore, as a result these two supporters are likely to support the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 (Jagadeesh, 2010).

Players who oppose The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010

The individuals that have a part of the salaries redirected to other individual accounts are one of the greatest individual opposing this act. This is due to the claims they make based on the fact that some of them too live below the poverty lines and therefore that percentage o their taxes poses as a big blow to them. The other individual that are likely to oppose this act include the medical insurance companies. This is due to the fact that according to their research conducted by them; this will increase the number of individuals that con not are in apposition to afford quality Medicaid and comprehensive health insurance (Maynard, 2010).

The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 is a social justice in the fact that it engages in activities that entails the advocating for diversity in; matters such as the support for the less advantaged issue in the society, one of these include the child from the poor social status backgrounds. This act is evident to be an element of social justice via caring for the Medicaid and health insurances for the less advantaged children and generally the poor (Jagadeesh, 2010). 

On my own standpoint, The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2010 should have bee put into much considerations in order to improve its chances of it being passed into a law. This is due to the fact that most are the individuals have less or no access to vitals factors such as the availability of Medicaid and health insurance. Among the many aspects that have been brought forward in favor of the social justice, this act could be probably one of the most effective.