I need help answering these 3 questions.

Does Privatization Provide a More Equitable Solution? Proposals for privatizing the Social Security system and the ensuing debates for and against the idea occur regularly in the U.S. As we discuss in Chapter 21, privatization efforts are part of a larger move over the past few decades to transition workers away from a pay-as-you-go system of defined benefits plans to private accounts owned by individual citizens. The looming costs of defined benefits plans and the stability of Social Security have both been evident for some time. For years, political leaders have agreed that something must be done and many proposals exist to strengthen the Social Security system. Yet the projections shown in Fig- ure 18.2, Figure 18.3, and Figure 18.4 (all from the 2018 Social Security Trustee's Annual Report) indicate the system's imminent insolvency. In 1940, when the first benefits were paid, there were more than 40 workers paying for each retiree receiving benefits. In 1960, there were five workers for each retiree. Today, there are 2.8 workers paying for each beneficiary. With the baby boom generation set to retire over the next few decades, that number is expected to fall even further, reaching 2.2:1 in 2035. After 2035 the decline is expected to continue, but be more gradual. These demographic changes mean that the burden of paying for Social Security will fall ever more heavily on the younger generation of workers. Today more than half of non-retirees polled say they don't expect to receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Certainly, current benefit levels cannot be maintained without raising Social Security withholding taxes or extending the normal retirement age. But is it fair to tax younger workers more heavily to pay for their parents' retirement? Will there even be any money left for their own retirement? One solution that has been proposed is individual investment accounts that would allow individuals to invest a percentage of their Social Security savings themselves. Proponents of privatization argue that it would allow greater returns than the traditional Social Security system. With economic volatility, privatization has lost momentum. But even when the plan was first pro- posed, it faced opposition on a number of grounds. The pay-as-you-go system is a guaranteed benefit (defined benefits plan). With many retirees depending on Social Security as their main source of income, this guarantee is crucial. But what happens if an individual invested unwisely? Proponents of a private system (defined contribution plan) argue that an education campaign, along with requirements for diversification and safeguards against high-risk investments, should prevent such losses. Another argument against privatization is the distortion it could cause in the stock market. With a large number of funds flowing into mutual funds from Social Security investors, prices might be driven up artificially. Government-approved mutual funds would receive a huge windfall in fees. Most young people, who politicians have argued would benefit the most from privatization, do not support changing the Social Security system but would rather see the existing system strength- ened. A majority polled say that "making sure that people receive a decent, guaranteed monthly retirement benefit" is a higher priority than "making sure that people receive a better rate of return." Questions for Discussion 1. Who should be responsible for the welfare of the retired population? The current workers or the retirees (who should save for it)? 2. Is it appropriate for the government to mandate forced savings in private accounts in lieu of the pay-as-you-go Social Security system? Would this action change the nature of the requirements from taxes to private saving? 3. If part of the individual accounts would be administered by the government, is it ethical for the government to essentially become a major shareholder in private companies