%0 Journal Article %A William G Shipman %T Social Security Privatization %D 1999 %R 10.3905/joi.1999.319428 %J The Journal of Investing %P 98-111 %V 8 %N 4 %X Critics of transforming Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing into a market-based structure claim that the transition cost would unduly burden people because they would have to pay twice - once for their own retirement and once for those already retired. This double expense is so prohibitive, it is argued as to warrant rejecting privatization out of hand. Such arguments ignore the enormous unfunded liabilities of the current Social Security system. The mechanisms for paying the costs are the same whether one attempts to maintain the existing system or shift to a new, market-based system: debt, additional revenue, reductions in spending elsewhere in the government. The author argues that moving to a market-based system will always eventually be less costly than attempting to preserve the current system. %U https://joi.pm-research.com/content/iijinvest/8/4/98.full.pdf