Question: Should social security be privatized?

Title: Privatizing social security enables investment of savings Content: Alex Schibuola. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. November 16th, 2010: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."

Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security would improve economic growth

Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security enables investment of savings

Title: Pensions should be privatised Content: Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea

Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will harm retirees

Title: Privatization is the least bad option. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions."

Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.

Title: Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return. Content: Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "privatization would provide retirees with a much higher rate of return on their investments."

Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments. Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership

Title: Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline—all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president’s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter."

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security helps the poor.

Title: Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "REASON #8: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WOULD REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—147 million in 1997. Many workers’ accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. [...] the government would need to hire ten thousand highly trained workers just to oversee the accounts and answer questions from workers. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 percent of annual revenues."

Title: Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce. Content: "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune: "The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes."

Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.

Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?

Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: As Daniel Webster once said, "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.

Title: Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds. Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Diverting up to four percentage points of the payroll tax to create private accounts as the president has proposed would shorten significantly the time until the Trust Funds become depleted. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As Figure 1 shows, the Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.

Title: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy. Content: Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down."

Title: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. Content: "LETTER: We should privatize Social Security." Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: "Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in."

Title: Privatising social security will harm retirees Content: Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: " Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.”[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html

Title: Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages. Content: Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."

Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

Title: Privatizing social security helps the poor. Content: Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs."

Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: even if you privatize social security and medicare, you still have to pay for it for current retirees and those nearing retirement. that would mean spending can't go down at the moment, your plan would only work in the future. and that's not even arguing that it's irresponsible to think people can invest their own money or somehow they'll get affordable healthcare without the government being involved. it's would be immoral and irresponsible to not pay for current retirees and close ones thus proving my resolution. it's easy to say cut unnecessary spending. it's another thing to show it in the numbers. the fact that you haven't shown any numbers makes me think you dont know much about the budget or spending.

Title: Privatization of Government Policies Content: We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns

Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: I'm glad we at least agree that social security has serious issues. It's always good to have common ground upon which to debate. I disagree that privatization has a shaky track record. It is government programs such as social security that have a shaky track record. Our entire economy is based on the merits of private enterprise, and it has worked for us thus far. Despite the relative youth of this country, we have managed to surpass all other nations in terms of economic productivity and wide-spread prosperity. I think it is rather inconsistent to say that, whereas privatization has proven successful in virtually every other area of our economy, that it would not be successful in providing retirement benefits for seniors. "[In] Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work." I have no doubt that this is the case. However, I don't see that our system is much better. According to one website (which I have cited below due to the length of the URL) one third of U.S. retirees are forced to go back to work shortly after "retiring," despite the 500 billion dollars collected in payrol taxes every year. At least Chile is getting its money's worth. "Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution." I don't see how savings rates puts us into a higher risk bracket. Savings accounts are the second lowest risk investment type, preceeded only by cash itself. There would be virtually no risk involved. The cost of privatization is irrelevant. That cost will only grow the longer we wait to fix this problem. Our choice is not between privatization and non-privatization, it is between privatization now, which MAY cost 4.9 trillion (depending on how you go about it), or privatization later, after the system has collapsed and elderly people are left without an income. You wouldn't be replacing one bloated bureaucracy with another, you'd be eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and replacing it with a private system whose very survival depends on its ability to be efficient! It doesn't cost any more for a mutual fund manager to handle two billion dollars than it does to manage two million dollars. The additional administrative costs would arise with distribution of benefits. Since businesses, unlike the government, are trying to make money, they are forced to do things in the most efficient way possible. Because of this, the cost of distribution would be significantly less than under a government run system. Moreover, we would be introducing a powerful factor into retirement benefits: compound interest. If we were allowed to invest our own money for our own retirment, instead of pay for someone else's retirement by sending that money to the government, more people would retire in a much better financial situation than currently. If I were allowed to put 2,000 dollars per year into decent mutual fund (one that earns 10% interest after adjusting for administrative costs and inflation, which is not unrealistic) beginning at age 24 until I retire at sixty-five, I would end up with one million dollars, only $80,000 of which I had actually put in to the account! That constitutes a %1250 return on my investment. Contrast that with our current system in which you recieve an estimated 1.23% rate of return for two income households. If social security is nothing more than the crappy end of a larger investment portfolio, why have it at all? Yes, there would still be administrative costs for a private system, but at least we'd be getting something in return. Why send $200 dollars to the government every paycheck where it will acrue no interest when you could invest it and get at as much as 10% interest? In light of this, social security is indeed a joke. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so completely wasteful. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HGSGDdY0zq0J:www.ci.walla-walla.wa.us/vertical/Sites/%257B5C31B82F-5E63-4200-9CF4-237E5245E279%257D/uploads/%257B528FE4F0-356F-4DB6-A60E-6258691ACD6B%257D.DOC http://www.heritage.org...

Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."[1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.”[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: To clearify as my opponent has asked, Priviatization shall be the ending of Federal Control in Social Security and a phase out to private control in a 10 year peroid. People with money curently in federal funds shall have this transfered to the compan the client chooes. My opponent is defending the Status Quo, Social Security as it is in this current moment.Contention 1: The Role of the GovernmentP1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Social Security does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce Social Security.""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Social Secutiry Program is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that the Social Security Program is not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter "Sir" as if he was a knight. Contention 2: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [8] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [9] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [10] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [11] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 3: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [12] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, "someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit." This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [13]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by "reaching into the cookie jar" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [14] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon "Aaaaand it's Gone." [15]Sources1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.follesdal.net...) 5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)6. (http://ajjulius.net...) 7. (https://mollydodd.wordpress.com...) 8. ( Social Security Administration, "Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries," ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)9. ( Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, "The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds," ssa.gov, July 22, 2015) 10. ( http://www.ncpa.org...) 11. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Inflation Calculator," bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)12. (Michael Clingman et al., "Internal Real Rates of Return under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers," ssa.gov, Dec. 2014) 13. Martin Feldstein, "Private Accounts Can Save Social Security," wsj.com, May 2, 201114. (President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, "Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans," ssa.gov, Dec. 21, 2001) 15. ( Michael Tanner, "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor," cato.org, July 26, 1996)

Title: The US should raise it's Debt Ceiling, with or without concessions Content: Thanks for the debate Double_R. My opponent was doing well until this last round, where he basically concedes all my arguments - all he does is repeat them back at me as questions. He never proves that privatizing Social Security would be bad, whereas I asserted that is the fair thing to do, since my generation won't get any of its benefits. Couple that with defense cuts (like removing troops from Germany, Italy, England, and Japan) and we could solve this problem without increasing the debt ceiling. He never proves that repudiating our debt would be bad. He never proves that China/Japan wouldn't just be forced to bail us out or forgive some of our debt. All he does is invoke my lack of a source, without bothering to attack my logic. But right now, I'll expand on both the source and logical warrant. First, this is a well known fact, that China holds too many T-bonds to dump them. Slate writes, "Still, there's little sign that China will reduce its U. S. -debt investments, or slow its purchase of T-bonds; any sell-off would risk flooding the market, devaluing China's investments still further. " . http://www.slate.com... Second, it just makes logical sense. If China holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury bonds, and they want to start selling, the problem is, they can't find enough buyers for all the trillions of dollars at once. So lets say they manage to sell a few hundred million. But as soon as investors hear that China is selling T-bonds, the value of the T-bonds plummets, meaning China's announcement of their intent to sell T-bonds destroys the value of their T-bonds. It's a simple supply issue. It's an ironic development that China bought so many T-bonds that they can't get rid of them, but the US should most definitely use this to our advantage, ESPECIALLY considering that our debt and overconsumption is responsible for a lot of China's recent growth. They should pay some of it back. My opponent argues that I'm being contradictory - arguing both for no increase in the debt ceiling and abolishing it. But in the world of debate, I can advocate that the judge vote for one or the other. If you don't buy my arguments regarding not increasing the debt ceiling, then vote to abolish it. My opponent agrees that this would be a negation of the resolution. If the debt ceiling is so annoying and keeps resulting in useless political bickering, when we've already spent the money anyways (since the budget is passed longer before the debt ceiling rise is debated), and if you buy my opponent's argument, that not raising the debt ceiling leads to the destruction of the US economy, then avoiding having this same fight the next year and the year after and the year after is better, so vote Con to repeal the debt ceiling entirely. It has more benefit than voting Pro, if you buy his case. But if not, then vote Con anyway, since if you want a debt ceiling to have any meaning, we have to actually enforce it for once. We raised the debt ceiling in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, twice in 2008, and are considering doing it again this year. As Rothbard noted, we just automatically increase it whenever the issue arises, which is why the debt ceiling has gone from $2.5 trillion to $14.8 trillion. My opponent's only real argument in his last round is an analogy about a credit card bill. But remember, if you hit your spending limit, the credit card company won't just increase the limit for you - that's not how a limit works. My opponent next invokes all the bad things that would happen - his sister not getting her check for serving in the military; grandma not getting her Medicare. First, note that we could solve the problem (which my opponent claims would require $738 billion in cuts) with JUST cuts to the military and Social Security. I never argue for shutting down the government or Medicare. Also, note all the other reasons I provide for why this would either not happen or would be good: 1) China could not dump T-bonds, so they'd just have to forgive the debt or bail us out 2) US could print money, causing inflation, which would cause the dollar to devalue relative to other currencies, making our exports more competitive 3) US could renounce the debt, allow the dollar to collapse, and use gold and silver as legal tender, avoiding the boom and bust cycle forevermore (my opponent asks which states are doing this now - Utah is . http://www.dailypaul.com...) 4) We could make the necessary cuts - the Deficit Reduction Committee gave us a huge list. 5) We could simplify the tax code (also recommended by the Deficit Reduction Committee), so we collect more taxes. The IRS fails to collect 20% of potential tax revenue. 6) The Republicans could just threaten to hold out on raising the debt ceiling (a real, credible threat). If the consequences really are as dire as my opponent says and the threat is credible, Obama would be forced to give in. But this still requires you to vote Con because we need to be serious about the threat to get the government to lock in future cuts. This is the only way to get cuts since otherwise politicians will just put them off for future generations. Notice my opponent leaves all of the above arguments unrefuted. He also never proves that the government is good. Maybe a government shutdown wouldn't be as bad as he says it is. As I said, if the government shut down, the private sector would take over the areas the government currently administers, but do them much more efficiently, generating jobs. And people not having to pay taxes anymore would massively stimulate the economy. My opponent doesn't impact anything, he just appeals to your gut with rhetorical questions ("abolish Social Security? ?? "). My opponent says "the time" to have taken a stand on the debt ceiling was during the Bush years, but first, we always blame everything on previous politicians to absolve the current politicians from taking any responsibility. Second, the debt ceiling was much much much lower before Bush took office; even if Bush had not increased our debt, we'd still be debating raising the debt ceiling right now to pay for Obama's $1.5 trillion deficit, even if the debt was instead at only $6 trillion. The point is, we didn't take a stand back then because "the debt didn't seem that bad. " We won't take a stand now because "the economy hasn't improved enough. " But this will be a long winter - our economy has recovered, while removing 6 million jobs structurally; businesses have achieved growth through outsourcing and computerizing tasks previously done by people. If we use that as justification to deficit spend $1.5 trillion each year, for the next 5-10 years, until things get better, then future generations are screwed. We are literally mortgaging our future, and the futures of our children. Every dollar that we deficit spend now is a significantly decreased quality of life in the future, since the bills will come due at some point, and that will be an extremely painful period. Even if I'm unemployed right now, that doesn't justify making my kid pay 90% of his income 30 years from now to pay for our enormous debt and entitlements. Anyways, the government hasn't passed a stimulus since 2009 - we're not even using the $1.5 trillion to generate jobs. We're just wasting money.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Let us get back to the debate. Contention 1: Harming Retirees My opponent argues that Privitazation would harm the retirees, but this is fallacous. I have shown last round they will be given an oppertunity to do with it as they please as they will have full ownership of the money in their private accounts. [1] With the ending of the government monopoly on the issue they can chose to do a multitude of things from investing in the stock market to banking or from investing in things like existing Roth IRAs and 401K plans. We would have to realize that opening the market will allow a multitude of new businesses to rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens and look out for their best interstests. Not to mention that you would be able to own your own accounts. Just as a Legal immirgrant was denied any sort of Social Security even though he was a registered US citizen and he paid taxes, but was dennied his SS benefits, but under privitization these options are open to anyone. [2] My opponent fears a stock market SS option, but that is a rediculious fear. We have seen that upon an investment you can see an anuall growth of 11% of your account showing a great deal of economic growth. That's just without a large investment if this plan is ennacted. [3] Let's do some generic math here to see the net benefit or loss from this. -The average stock grows 10% each year. [4] -Average dividend is 3%[5] -Inflation is about 3.2% [6] So mathematically we can expect to see an average of 9.8% growth in earnings each year while the individual under Social Security would be at 2.7-3.2%. Which after 42 years (from age 18-60) under this plan you'll get $711,000 vs. if you just stuck with the status quo Social Security you can get the maximum of $118,500. [7] Even if this cap is eliminated under this estimate under my opponent's system it will only rise to a whopping $126,000. Not to mention that this is just simply the average stock vs. SS max. Can you image if you get better than normal? You'd be a millionare. We can see that on the Solvency here and the balance of the impacts my plan outweighs my opponents. We can see that this would be a gradual thing that will be phased out of in 10 years. Last year Social Security ate up 26% of the US budget with $906 billion and this number is growing. Funding will simply come from the existing SS budget as the number will sink as the accounts are being privitized. [8] Contention 2: Privatization I know that my system hasn't been tried anywhere, but that doesn't mean that it would outright fail. How do you think we've gotten to the moon. With that I will move on to some of the examples that my opponent has brought up to show why he is incorrect and ommitting a great deal of the truth from you. The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control. You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Contention 3: Counter Plan I agree with my opponent that something here needs to be done, but his purposal is purposterous and will wreck the economy. We currently see that the tax rate is currently 6.20% for Social Security and Medicare is approximately 1.45%. We can see that the tax rate wouldn't go up by 0.7%, but we would see a jump to at least 9% in order to cover the Social Security Costs over the next 75 years. Economicst Emmanuel Saez and Jefferey Libberman have found that even if we eliminate the Tax Cap we can still see a 40% short fall of SSA statistics. [11] So even if Con's plan is enacted it wouldn't improve the situation, but actually make it worse. He also found that if any raise did occur then they actually found that poor women would actually have a negative earnings and their money that they would be pooring into the system would be worth a whole lot less then if it was implamented. Not only was it found that the nation would get less income from the taxation, but people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan than the SSA's by $1,000s at many times and begins to stagnate around those who make $60,000 and up. [12] We can actually see that one of the key things we have here is that those above the Tax Max make well less than those who pay into the system. It turns out that those over tend to make a whoping 5% over the tax limit while the rest make out richer in the end. We can also see that with the current federal tax bracket there is 45% tax rate for the top bracket. [13] After the increase at federal and state level which includes raising the tax rates to accomidate this we can see they will wind up with an overal 12% tax increase to the point to where they are tax higher than those in Scandinavia and we still wouldn't see Substantial solvency in the long run still leading to this counter-plan to be a failure. [14] Not to mention that this plan still doesn't solve for much of the issues with current Social Security Standings as not only is it worse, but we can see that there's still holes in it. We can still see that in the long run we will still see a Bridge Payer system here and with the US population growing older we can see that this issue will only continue to grow worse and the problem needs to be fixed now. Just as under Con's plan and the Status Quo, the US Federal Government can still use the SS funds to do whatever they want with it as they please and for many Americans it will just seem like another way more money is being squeezed out of Americans and our Senior Citizens still won't see a dime. [15] Not to mention if they die before they reach the age that they would be able to receive it, under Con's Plan just as the Status Quo, the funds would dissolve, but under my plan, as I have shown last round, will move to the clostest living relitive. Sources 1. (Michael D. Tanner, "Is There a Right to Social Security? ," cato. org, Nov. 25, 1998) 2. (Social Security Administration, "Social Security History: Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor," ssa. gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015) 3. Aswath Damodaran, "Annual Returns on Stock, Bonds and T-bill’s: 1928 - Current," New York University Stern School of Business website, Jan. 5, 2015 4. (. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) 5. (. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...) 6. (. http://inflationdata.com...) 7. (. http://www.kiplinger.com...) 8. (Courtney Baird, "Diving into the Deficit," Committee for Economic Development website, Nov. 6, 2014) 9. (. http://www.cato.org...) 10. (. http://www.texaspolicy.com...) 11. ( . http://eml.berkeley.edu...) 12. ( 1 Saez (2001) shows, when deriving the optimal non-linear marginal tax rate formula, that the same Laffer rate formula applies when considering a local marginal tax rate increase exactly as in our 90% of earnings)13. (. http://fee.org...) 14. ( Andrew G. Biggs, “Entitlements: Not Just a Health Care Problem,” AEI Retirement Policy Outlook (August 2008), www. aei. org/outlook/28443. See also Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (Washington, DC, June 2010), www. cbo. gov /doc. cfm? index=11579 (accessed March 8, 2011). 15. ( Michael Tanner, "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor," cato. org, July 26, 1996)26, 1996)

Title: Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security. Content: Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts."

Title: this should be the outline for reforming social security Content: if social security isn't reformed in the next couple decades, everyone will be forced to take a twenty five percent cut. what should we do about it? if we take as a premise as most people do that we should salvage the program, you run into a basic math problem. we can either ration it, or we can raise revenue, or both. as far as the rationing side of things, we can either let grandma get her check reduced, or we can focus on those who make more than they need. why are we paying trump and the richest men in the world over thirty grand a year? if we have to ration, ration towards the top and work your way down. really we should prioritize cutting these excessive payments before we even consider raising any taxes. liberals like to say raise the wage cap on what is taxed for higher income. but this only solves the problem for a couple generations. nothing to sneeze at of course, and most people don't get their tax increased. but this is just throwing money at the issue, and not fundamentally or permanently reforming the program. we also rational as need be, and restructure the program. as far as restructuring, we can make the program more of an insurance program, such that you get money if you are poor or not well off, and taper off benefits to those who are rich. we could give them something, though, so that everyone receives some benefit and all are affected. they considered doing it as insurance when they created the program, but wanted everyone to be involved, understandably, so some of this can be kept too. as a last thought, there's also the more conservative ideas of privatizing social security. the major reservation i have there is mostly for the poor and not well off. if they had to rely on what they were able to get in the market with what they invest now, they wouldn't do all that well. social security does a better job than the market for these people, if you can tolerate a little redistribution, like most people can. as far as privatizing some of it, id be concerned about ensuring we have a guaranteed minimum that people receive regardless of the market. so maybe we could go with investing say half of your tax in accounts that are well regulated, and perhaps taxing the richest accounts if need be to ensure a proper redistribution. this has the potential to raise everyone's benefit and be a win for all. we'd again though want to ensure enough is kept as a minimum for those who are not well off. it's winter, but it must not be all that cold outside, cause those of my political persuasion are still willing to put our hands in other other people's pockets instead of keeping them where it's warm, in our own. ha

Title: Private accounts can be transferred within family Content: Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "These accounts would also be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. If you die, you can pass it along to your heirs. With the current system, you can't do that. You have no claim on that money even though you may have spent a lifetime paying payroll taxes."

Title: Support for privatization is driven by misinformation. Content: Max Skidmore. "Why Privatizing Social Security Is a Terrible Idea." History News Network. February 28th, 2005: "There can be little doubt, at least among those who view the issue objectively, that it is purely iIdeology (or misinformation), not economics, that generates the enthusiasm for privatization."

Title: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Content: Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html

Title: Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out. Content: Because my opponent did not submit an argument, I continue to advocate which I stated in the previous round. In closing, I am not against the idea of Social Security. I think that it was a necessary program in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2 to help lift America out of economic turmoil and aid struggling seniors. But since then, many more tools and methods have become available to save for retirement and build up a "nest egg". Some of these methods are much more effective than social security and provide the holder with a real tangoble asset which they can pass down to their spouse or children. I am not saying take away Social Security. It should still be left in place but it should be made optional for those who are savvy investors and savers and would feel that they can save more effectively using an alternative method to the social security system. I urge everyone to vote CON. Thank you!

Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization

Title: The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Content: Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...

Title: "Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism. Content: To start, I'd like to say that I'm not the most ardent supporter of nationalized health care in the world, so much so that I don't declare a position in my debate.org profile, but this seems like it will be a pretty theoretical debate, so I decided to give it a shot! Whiplash, I do not think that for opposing a nationalized system of health care you're some monocle-wearing Mr. Burns-esque figure - your position is certainly logical and valid. I do wonder however, what you think of other services provided by the government. If we follow your logic, we should privatize all retirement plans, schools, and even roads. Not everyone reaps the same benefits from Social Security, not everyone sends their children to public schools, and not everyone travels on roads kept up with public funds. Do you believe all of these things should be privatized as well? If you label nationalized health care as socialism, you'll need to label those things as socialism as well. I understand that the title of this debate is hyperbolic, but there are elements of socialism in U.S. government already - implementing nationalized health care wouldn't make Lenin proud however, because it's still a very small portion of wealth being redistributed, if we want to use that term. I'll leave my argument there for now and see where it takes us - I've got some other arguments I'd like to bring up later though!

Title: Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation: "Reason #4: privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.": "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.” [read extended quote in argument page].

Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security houldn't be exempt. i'd rather not cut their benefits, but we need to find places to cut to balance the budget. please, tell me how you would address the fiscal situation without cutting benefits? or do you think everyone's benefits should be cut not just the rich? should we cut defense more? if you say we should privatize social security and medicare, you still have to show how you'd pay for current and near retirees. this will take decades to deal with. the current generation retiring has been borrowing aganst social security to pay for goverment and defense. it's only fair we focus on not lettin them pass the buck onto the next generation by cutting their benefits some.

Title: Private social security accounts are voluntary. Content: Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing Social Security negatively impacts women

Title: Today's Social Security was a terrible idea Content: Arguments will start in round 2. Pro will argue that Social Security as it stands today should never have been implemented. Con will argue for the status quo. Things this debate should steer clear of:Purely emotional argumentsTalking points based on conjecture and not backed up with factual sourcesPersonal attacksThanks for accepting! Good Luck!

Title: Privatize Medicare Content: I will be debating in favor of privatizing Medicare. The first round is just for acceptance. I await my challenger!

Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: First off, I would like to point out that your theory is flawed. You state that if we cut out benefits for the top 10%, we would have 10% more money to give to the poor but you fail to realize that the Rich have been paying for social security their whole lives. Suddenly removing benefits for something these people had already paid for (Whether they need it or not) is Robbery, unchristian and Sure to make a Ruckus. Whether you are Christian or not, The Scriptures tell us that we have a right to Reap what we Sow, and though not all of the Founding fathers were Christian, this principle is what America was founded on. This being said, The System hardly gives any Benefits to the Rich, or the Middle class. An Average Citizen will get 2-3% Feedback from the System. In a Nutshell, A Life time of payment for a mere 2-3% Increase. Addressing your Second Paragraph, You will make just about the same amount Money by merely saving up for retirement, than you will being enrolled in social security. Our Populace has grown accustomed to the Government providing free services, and hand-outs, so much so that they do not realize they are getting a Raw deal. Privatized Rates are Traditionally higher than Government Rates, because Private companies have competition to keep the Prices down, and the Benefits up. In Contrast to the measly 2-3% of Social Security Feed-back, over the past century private stock has had on average an 8% feedback. Privatizing the system would certainly be a step in the right direction, as the Government could focus on things like Defense, Prosperity, and International freedom, instead of owing 7 Million of it's own citizens money. Facing the Cold Hard Facts, the Government is in debt to its own citizens and must take away funds from our safety and international standing, perhaps even hiking taxes (America already being one of the highest taxed nation in the World) on the next generation, who are ill-prepared to pay, as they themselves want a nice fat check from the government. The system of Social security is a century old idea that is failing to conform to modern needs. Capitalism, is Thousands of years old, has provided, and endured. Privatizing the system, as I have briefly discussed earlier, is a more stable, and profitable system for not just the Poor, or Rich, or Middle-Class, but for all Americans who put their fair share into it. Citations: . http://www.wsj.com...

Title: Public supports private social security accounts. Content: Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36."

Title: Abolish Social Security Content: Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.

Title: Privatize Medicare Content: To make things clear, PRO has the BOP to demonstrate why privatization of medicare would be beneficial. I hold the negative proof to deny that any of his assertions are accurate to win this debate. So Pro's only argument is the last two sentences: If we were to privatize Medicare, the government will not have to spend any money on this at all. I believe the private sector almost always provides things more effectively and efficiently than the federal government. Society can take care of itself, it is just that we as a society expect the government to do it.The problem with Pro's argument is that he refuses to use any supporting details for his assertions. Seeing how Romney's campaign in 2011 delt with medicare privitaiztion, we have evidence proving that complete privatiztion will harm the poor and the elderly. For support, please look at these articles: http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; In summary, we have to realize that insurance companies are not healthcare practitioners. Insurance companies are businesses. Their main objective is to make money off of selling commodities. In this case, healthcare coverage. How would insurance companies make a profit? By selling better coverage at higher preminums. If we were to completely privatize medicare, then healthcare would be completely based off of social economic status. Which means, over 50%** of the population would be recieving little to no care when we take into consideration the cost of medical procedures. **The 50% is an estimation by considering that the average household income is 35K/year. Seeing how it costs 8 grand for an xray w/o insurance. 50% seems more than likely as a statistical number. http://en.wikipedia.org...;While it is true that complete privatiztion might reduce government spending, one has to realize the health tradeoff as a result. Please see previous pragraph. If one is more concerned with government debt, then one should consider killing off part of the population instead of letting the population suffer through inadeaquate care. If we consider both scenarios in form a utiltairian view, then my proposed strategy would be more efficient because it would elminate uncessary suffering. Your beliefs about the private sector is irrelevent when you cannot support your arguments with evidence.Why do we have a govenrment if society can take care of itself?

Title: The U.S. should privatize health insurance. Content: Secondly, I would like to congratulate my opponent, @Greg4586, for reaching the finals. It has been a long run, and let’s make this debate as memorable as possible. Framework: Con must argue that the U. S. should fully privatize health insurance. The resolution states that, “The U. S. should privatize Health Insurance. ” As long as there is public health insurance (medicaid, medicare), U. S. health insurance is not privatized. To fulfil my role in the debate, I must argue that privatization is a bad thing. This is sufficient to negate the truth of the resolution. A Market Driven System: A good health insurance is not based upon profit generation and stock improving, but the health care for the citizens of a nation. Privatization, by definition, means, “The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization. ” Dr. Shah states that, “[T]he five largest health insurance companies--WellPoint, UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna. .. earned over $3.3 billion in profits. .. It’s no surprise these enormous earnings are not going towards improving access to health care for the families they cover. Instead, they go towards protecting the narrow self-interests of their stockholders, board members, and top executives. WellPoint alone spent $67 million on lobbying over the last 3 years and paid their CEO, Angela Braly, $13 million in 2010. They also spent $21.6 billion dollars of patient premiums to buy back its own stock from 2003 through 2010, pushing the price of the stock options their executives and board members own still higher. ” (1) The clear goal of corporations is to generate money and please the shareholders. Governments, however, do not have the same profit-seeking goals as corporations. When health insurance is turned over to private companies in full, health insurance payment becomes a series of rate hikes to increase the net worth of the company. As a result of profit-seeking, not everyone is able to afford health insurance. Note that the #1 leading cause of bankruptcy is an inability to afford medical bills. (2) People often have to change their entire way of life to acclimate to the costs of health insurance. According to Shah, “A 2007 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that. ..10 percent changed their way of life to pay medical bills. .. an estimated 28 million adults reported they used up all their savings, 21 million incurred large credit card debt, and another 21 million were unable to pay for basic necessities. And yet sixty-one percent of those with medical debt or bill problems were insured at the time care was provided. ” (1) Public Health Insurance: The most successful healthcare systems in the world are not private systems. According to (3), of the top 50 health care systems in the world, only 10 are not universal systems that heavily involve government funding. The most success (France) is extremely public. What France has that we don’t, is a system largely reliant on government funding, and an almost full reimbursement system on all medical expenses. Public health insurance works, considering the fact that the #1 rated system in the world is 77% public (4). Private Healthcare, as I have previously stated, relies heavily on payments from the insured. The main motives of corporations is to generate profit, even if it means forgoing quality. As the rates continue to increase (because it makes the company more money), a lesser percentage of the general populous can afford healthcare. When the rate of health insured citizens starts to go down, collateral damage is what follows. (5) Shows us that a total of 13% of the population is without health insurance. The result, is a stunning ranking of 42nd in world life expectancy (6). If you look at that source closely, Japan, who is ranked 3rd, has public health insurance. Also, our good friend France is ranked at 15th; their citizens live 2 years longer than ours do. There is no doubt that a correlation between the rate of the uninsured and the life expectancy of citizens in a country exists. Employment: Often in the employment field, companies sponsor a specific health insurance provider, and that is detrimental to the work satisfaction and performance of employees. This process is better known as “Job Lock. ” Job Lock is pernicious to entrepreneurship and innovation. “To most health economists, “job lock,” the idea that workers work more or face constraints in job mobility due to provision of work-related health insurance, is a real and important phenomenon. ” (7) When people are forced into working for a company because of the cost of private health insurance, it decreases their job satisfaction, and limits their potential in their career. At the workplace, especially in economically troubled areas, there might be employees who are not fully insured. When there is an outbreak of a contagious virus, uninsured employees could possibly spread it to other workers, and even people around them. Employees may not be able to perform at top capability because of a chronic illness or infectious virus because of their lack of medical attention. This all circles back around to the fact that private health insurance does not fully cover the population, and public health insurance does. What public health insurance does is negate Job Lock, because there is no Employer Sponsored Health Insurance, and there is no incentive to find cheaper health insurance of better quality. Public health insurance covers everyone in the nation, and there is no excessive expense aimed at the citizens. Cost > Effectiveness: Our country, 42nd in the world in life expectancy and 13% of our population uninsured, spent 2.8 trillion dollars on health insurance in 2012 (8), more than any country in the world. Private health insurance is not only forcing our country to spend more than any other country in health insurance, but it does not even work properly. This graph shows us that countries heavily dependent on government funding in health insurance are spending trillions less annually than the U. S. , which has mostly private health insurance. Therefore, privatized health insurance is not a viable option, and it is not worth spending on; 13% of our nation is without health insurance. Conclusion: I have fulfilled my role in the debate, and gained the eligibility to receive votes in my favor by providing reasons substantial enough to negate the truthfulness of the resolution. Thank you, once again, @1harderthanyouthink and @Greg4586. Vote Con! 1) . http://www.drsforamerica.org... 2) . http://www.cnbc.com... 3) . http://thepatientfactor.com... 4) . https://en.wikipedia.org... 5) . http://kff.org... 6) . https://www.cia.gov... 7) . http://theincidentaleconomist.com... 8) . http://www.chcf.org... 9) Chart: . https://epianalysis.files.wordpress.com...

Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: the following article says poor people depend on social security. pointing out that many do not need it is ridiculous in trying to prove it's an unnecesary program. the article also says the following. "Currently, 36 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income" if the average social security is 1300, and they rely on nienty percent of it, their income is only 139 without social security. plus all the people who get the minimum around seven hundred have no other sources, and this also includes the disabled, whom i know many personally, with that minimum number their only income. you can argue family should try to support them, but dont try to pretend people dont rely on it. and con is just wrong, the government made a promise. if the government passed a law to sell cars, and you paid twenty thousand for a new car, wouldn't you be pissed if they backed out? wouldn't it be a broken promise on their part? of course it would. maybe you and me can agree that we can cut a lot of it for higher income people, but even if you cut the program in half, you are merely balancing the budget at best, and not being able to pay for the budget when the deficit soon doubles as it's expected to do. and then there's medicare, privatizing that is akin to just taking poeple's healthcare away and letting them die. con offers highly immoral and irresposible ideas. hence it's the most responsible thing to do to raise taxes.

Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: the rich are the ones who are engaging in theft. they borrow against social security their whole lives to fund the government, instead of paying for it themselves out of taxes, and leave the bill to the next generation. it's totally fair to charge the bill to the ones who created it by lessenig their benefits. it's not that i'm totally against lessening everyone's benefits, but when people are doing without a basic livelihood, it makes more sense to take from the excess than from people who are merely getting by. again talk about theft. if one person owned ninety percent of the land, and there are poor people who have no land, doesn't it make sense to take some of the excess instead of taking from the people just getting by? it's the moral thing to do. also con just ignored my points. if we privative it, how do we fund the current system for retirees and near retirees? if we want to balance the budget, how do we make a dent in it when spending for social security medicare defense interest account for ninety percent of the budget? especially without raising taxes as i assume you don't want to do? like most people, con just ignores the problem. like i said, it's not my first option to want to reduce their benefits. but we face serious financial problems. and it's the only fair and ethical way to do it.

Title: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Content: Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system. By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.

Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: 1)Social Security and Payroll tax = *not* the same thing 2)So what if I am "advocating Socialism?" I'm defending my position in the debate. 3)You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of greed and human weakness, from even the most well-intentioned souls. 4)You have not really refuted my arguments, or shown how it is that if someone has no money or assets at all, then if Social Security disappears everything will be nice and rosy the next day. 5)If a person cannot work at all because of a disability or such, all of your arguments for abolishing Social Security become void as you have not talked of any kind of replacement system, except for the wonderfully mysterious (and evidently reverential) "private sector." Right - leave it to them and they'll take care of it. 6)Not tangents, points; points which you did not answer. 7)You using the Heritage Organization as a source is quite amusing. A bunch of rich white guys - the most conservative people in the country - I'm sure they can tell the poor exactly how to fix all their own problems because it is so in their interest to do so. I'm sure they'll get around to it after they finish counting the interest on their offshore accounts and add Reagan to the Greek Pantheon. 8)Even by that ridiculous source's numbers of .3%, that's STILL quite a few people for the richest nation in the world. 9)If you provide a job for someone that cannot work, it isn't "charity" at all. If you provide someone with a dead-end job that will never get them out of poverty but keeps them from receiving benefits already available, it isn't charity either, it's another case of the haves exploiting the have-nots. 10)In real numbers, the price of goods and services never goes down, only up. 11)"You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation." Only for the wealthy, who have enough money already that it doesn't matter - it must be nice to be able to live on interest. 12)"Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on." And you talk about my tangents. What does this have to do with anything? Also, you have to be able to afford these things before you have them (which counts out most poor disabled people. Again, the companies didn't make these to be charitable - they made them to make profits for themselves. 13)"People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country." Please wake up from Ayn Rand-cult fantasy-land. It was an interesting debate until you politicized it and began to write in the tone of a freshman. Just do one thing for me: don't ever fall on hard times or become paralyzed or poor - you would have to give up your current delusions and come to grips with reality. It might be too much for you. *shrug* Britt

Title: Our economic situation Content: Yes but not everything is. Like schools. More things need to be privately own. Like get rid of medicare and medicaid and we will save a bunch of money on that. And schools would be better if privately own in my opinion.

Title: Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory. Content: My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.

Title: Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory Content: My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.

Title: Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation: "Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully."]: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies by Yale economist Robert J. Shiller and others have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market." [read extended quoted in argument page.]

Title: The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent Content: Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11) Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts.[1] Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: " has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one."[2] Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.”[3] There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: "You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both." These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security.[4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations. [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [3] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [4] Dick, Stephen. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...

Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: This round I shall work on my Case and with the character restriction I will appoligies if I run out of room and have to cut a few things shortContention 1: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [1] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [2] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [3] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [4] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 2: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [5] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, "someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit." This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [6]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by "reaching into the cookie jar" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [7] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon "Aaaaand it's Gone." [8]The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control.You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000." [11] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [12] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [13]Sources1. ( Social Security Administration, "Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries," ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://www.ncpa.org...) 4. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Inflation Calculator," bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer’s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it’s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro’s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There’s no denying there’ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It’s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro’s cit.#3, the NCPA, “The NCPA’s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control”. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There’s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro’s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it’s “assumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,”echoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That’s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states “Social Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans” then concludes “scaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.” Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it’s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let’s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don’t look attractive considering ½ of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it’ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro’s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro’s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush’s plan, in office at the time, hence the title “President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.”It’s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here’s the catch, SS OASDI “would require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits”With his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there’ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They’ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro’s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:“The first part is that people are mishandling their money…”Just a reminder, you brought this up “Posted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.” You have a plan? It’s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It’s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You’ll do it in 10? Pro’s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn’t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro’s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.“The biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.” Pro’s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro’s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. Content: We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.

Title: All public parks and nature areas should be sold off and privatized in the USA. Content: Pro clearly stated in Round 2 that my bare assertion was " true only because my opponent says it is true". He is saying that because I said it should not be privatized, it is true. His following arguments are nullified, as he admits I am right.

Title: Social Security is beneficial to United States Citizens Content: Here are my contentions: 1-. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Think about it. Social Security promises its investors money, then gives it money from new investors. This requires more and more investors to contribute their money, making the problem steadily worse over time [1]. The problem is, even though we've realized that it's a Ponzi scheme, we aren't allowed to back out of it. The government will literally force us to contribute to its funds, as it punishes independent men who will con, not force, money from people. Any system that has to force people to contribute to it cannot be beneficial 2-. Social Security cannot sustain itself. When Social Security was first started, there was one retired senior for every 16 workers [2]. With both a steady increase in life expectancy and a steady decrease in the fertility rate over time, there's a retired senior for every 3.3 workers, and this number is only going to get progressively smaller. Eventually, every two workers will have to support one retired senior, which hardly seems possible given how much money these seniors demand from the system. Taxes will have to go up dramatically, and nobody wants that. That would hardly be beneficial. Sure, we could borrow the money, but the national debt is verging on collapse as it is; social security will quicken the fall. Either we'll be far overtaxed as we begin to work, or the government will break its promise to new retirees and refuse to pay them, despite the fact that they paid into the system in the first place. Neither of these inevitable scenarios look promising at all. 1 . Social security gives money to seniors. Sure, seniors get money after they retire, but that's only because they paid money before they retired - and chances are they aren't getting as much back as they put in, given the time value of money [3]. The U. S. government is taking the money to use for itself, then returning about an equal amount later, essentially robbing the workers of the time value of that money. If workers want a safety net for retirement, they can, and do, have savings accounts in the bank, and meet with financial advisors to ensure that they have enough money for retirement. The government is a laughable and dangerous replacement for a financial advisor. 2 . Social security helps the disabled and those whose relatives have died. Yes, but this helps them with the same tax dollars that it robbed from them, so they overall still lose money. Besides, few families that actually receive these benefits would literally die without them. In conclusion, while social security may benefit a few, it overall sets up the rest of the country to a collapsing system that's sure to cause economic pain. With that, I leave the debate to my opponent, and request that he begin to properly source his claims. [1] . http://www.americanthinker.com... [2] . http://www.socialsecurityreform.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: Rules: No kritiks or semanticsBoP sharedContention: Privatization of Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) would be disastrous due to risk, the need to raise taxes and its contribution to the national debt.http://www.youtube.com...Risk: Looking at past recessions, stock market crashes and changing monetary policy in just the last 30 years proves there’s risk involved in changing Social Security RIB to a Private Plan (PP). A person can lose initial investment as well as gains in the markets. The early 1980’s recession was due to monetary policy [1]. In August 1987 markets began to slide, by Oct. 19th, Black Monday, the market took a 22.5% loss in one day; measured total fall of 36.7% [2]. In 1990-92 there was the S&L crisis with a Fed bail out [3]. The DOT com bubble burst of the 90’s is another example [4, 5]. Lastly, the more recent 2008 housing and financial crash where the stock market fell 2400 points in a week [6]. At each occurrence those with mature investments ready to retire took a big hit. Waves of unemployment resulted with decreased or halted contributions, and sometimes liquidation of retirement assets was enacted to stay afloat. In the last crash, those within 10 years, or broaching retirement loss 20% of their retirement investment with little or no time to recoup losses. Either way, that money is lost never to return; recoup means to get to a previously held level [7]. If you retire during an economic down turn you may not have sufficient funds to last. The risk defeats the purpose of the social security safety net. Under Funding Current Insurance Liabilities: Shifting funds to individual accounts, a PP, would take away funds from the current millions of spouses, dependent children of the deceased, as well as the disabled [8]. Furthermore, current influx of funds supports the now retired. How would the government fund current RIB payments of the near future and presently retired? A PP would only apply to those coming into the work force anew. All those currently working and contributing to the traditional RIB would be a part of the old system for decades to come. The Social Security RIB is estimated to take 75 years for complete solvency if privatization is enacted [14]. No one has a crystal ball on the changing tide of the economy, the government or the will of the people over that span of time. For a PP to be implemented the Gov would need to decrease current payouts and borrow to cover current liabilities with the diversion of taxes going to individual accounts [17], also raise payroll taxes [11]. Currently a portion, approximately 1 out of 5 SS dollars, goes into the SS Trust Fund to pay future benefits [9]. If current money goes into individual accounts contributions to the Trust Fund will cease and its present balance will be depleted far more quickly that the expected 2058 [10, 15]. A.) Net Loss: To fund current and near future payments government borrowing and cut in services will not be enough. A raise in SS taxes would be needed. Monies will go into PPs for the future and the tax increase will support the current pool as well as subsidize low income workers contributing to PPs to ensure minimum retirement income [14 p.27]. Privatization will have the payer contributing to both ends rather than the current pay-as-you formula. The increase in tax against balance in private accounts could produce a negative gain effect [13]. Government borrowing for transition cost, which is estimated to be 10 trillion, will contribute greatly to the already ballooning national debt [14 p.29]. Various proposals have been made on how privatization would be structured, either by a centralized government entity or open market competition. I’ll examine the lesser of two evils in this round.Issues with Centralized Privatization: A centralized government plan would certainly decrease some of the administrative and broker’s fee associated in typical investment market purchases, but who will decide what the options for privatized accounts will be? Financial institutions will have political influence in Washington [15, 16]. Considering the S&L debacle of the early 90’s, the financial industry’s complicity in the 2008 crash and following bail out at tax payer expense, they can’t be trusted to act in our best interest. The lure of all working Americans contributing to private accounts where profits that can be made is too tempting. To say a reoccurrence of a stock market or financial institution crash and bail out will not occur again is a fallacy; history has bore this out [14]. Not only will we, the tax payer, be bailing out the financial sector again, loose all or most of what is in our PPs but, also have to pay to replenish the system for it to continue.1. 1. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu...2. 2. http://www.stockpickssystem.com...3. 3. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu....4. 4. http://www.investors.com...5. 5. http://www.thebubblebubble.com...6. 6. http://money.usnews.com...7. 7. https://www.ebri.org...8. 8. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com...9. 9. https://en.wikipedia.org...10. 10. http://www.npr.org...11. 11. http://www.nytimes.com...12. 12. http://www.ncpssm.org...13. 13. http://www.fedsmith.com...14. 14. http://www.actuary.org...15. 15. http://business.time.com...16. 16. http://www.ourfuture.org... 17. 17. http://www.brookings.edu...

Title: Social Security Content: This is the rebuttal round, and I will give them now. Rebuttals: "First, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. " Social Security requires taxes. Workers are going to pay taxes. I don't see a problem with the taxes, because it does have benefits for the elderly. It allows the elderly to live a stable life, and enjoy the rest of their years. Ponzi Scheme-How is it a Ponzi Scheme? Young investors will also acquire these benefits once they become old. The system will never collapse. The only way it will collapse is if American wealth starts to deter. "54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. " -Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. -Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. If my opponent cuts social security, than 47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I will defend my attacks on the pension plan in the next round.

Title: Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "Social Security represents a bad deal for postwar Americans. Moreover, the deal has gotten worse over time. Baby boomers are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Generation X=ers and today=s children will lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. These losses assume no adjustment to Social Security=s taxes or benefits. But, as indicated above, major adjustments are inevitable unless the system is privatized. If OASI taxes are raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an ongoing basis, baby boomers will forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. Those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn."

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.

Title: "spending on poor" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep Content: con confuses the the use of the world "welfare". welfare generically might mean social security and such.... but it mostly refers to hand outs to parents with kids, and it is usually limited to a few years. even if we took the generic use of the word, con misses the point. as i said in the last post, social security, medicare etc are paid by pay roll taxes and are so far self sustaining. this is not "spending on the poor" as is the point of the thread, but spending on everyone's future when they are at retirement age. also, if con wants to argue we should reform 'entitlements' by all means, as we can make significant strides in our fiscal health if we do, and it is necessary. but this is not the thread to do it. we are focusing on 'spending on the poor', and con has clearly missed the point.

Title: The means testing of social security benefits. Content: I argue against the motion of "In the current economic climate paying social security benefit to those who not need it is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford. It is far better to target this support to low income families who need it most. "

Title: Social Security tax cap should be eliminated Content: I completely disagree with this. I beleive that we should have a system that allows social security to be used in a decent manner, such as better applications. Without this tax, the entire system would collapse, leaving many disabled without a source of income. Even though most people pay this tax, these same people pay for the roads we drive on, the education we, and our family, received. In addition to this, many people who have paid the tax will be unruly against the government due to the unfairness of inequality in taxation between generations.

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private social security accounts are voluntary.

Title: Government Presence in the Pensions Sector Reduces Quality of Pension Services Content: Crowding out is not the same as blocking or preventing private companies to provide pension. The fact that the public provision of pension is preferred over private; even though as the proposition has articulated that option is available goes to prove that the perceived quality of government pensions is greater than that of private. This rather weak argument that pension should be privatized on the sole basis that Private providers cannot 'handle the competition' provided by Public providers needs to be revised extensively. [[Mishkin&Eakins(also cited earlier, same book different page) pg584]] Stock market failure in 2000(Specifically falling stock prices in the 2000-2002 period) wised people up to the problems with privatization. 70%+ private pension plan assets are based in the rather unreliable stock market. "The biggest obstacle to privatization is that funds diverted into private accounts will not be available to pay current retiree's benefits.This exacerbates the problem rather than solving it." analysts suggest the cost of a fully-privatized pension plan would be unaffordable(whereabouts 100 billion U.S.D) People retiring today will only receive a 2.2% return and a 30-yr-old employee will literally lose money in absolute terms upon retirement. Insurance companies are being crowded out by Private pension funds. Both institutions assume risk for their customers in exchange for a fee called a premium. The premium is lower for private pension funds.Public pension plans are preferred over both insurance and private pension funds, for the reason that they do not call for any such fee in exchange for no risk at all. Lower cost and greater security seem to be the dependable impetus to people's preference/choice.

Title: Education in the United States. Content: Resolved:All education in the United States should be privatized. My argument will be arguing that public education in the United States should remain public. Both sides will hold BoP. First Round will be for acceptance. Any questions shall be asked in the comment section.

Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: so it looks like con deosn't even want to fund social security and medicare for current and near retirees? that's just irresponsible. a large percent of people rely solely on those funds, and we made a promise to them that we'd follow through. con would leave people destitute and break a promise.

Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: Social Security provides government assistance for Seniors and other people unable to work. While this is certainly a noble goal, Social Security has had the opposite effect from what its well-intentioned sponsors wanted it to have because it must be funded with the payroll tax or go bankrupt. Consequently, abolishing Social Security would lead to much more desirable results. Few taxes have harmed poor people more than the payroll tax. The payroll tax is roughly a 12.4% tax on a worker's wages. An employer withholds 6.2% of the employee's wages, and then the employer matches that amount before giving it to Uncle Sam to pay for Social Security. The wage base for the social security tax is $97,500 for the year 2007. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000. After Washington receives the money, checks are printed out and distributed directly to retired people. Contrary to popular belief, none of the money is saved in an account for the individual. In fact, the rest of the money is spent on government programs, which is why Al Gore suggested creating a "lock box" to prevent the payroll taxes from being used for other purposes. Had Al Gore explained what he meant by a "lock box" he would not have been embarrassed on Saturday Night Live. Then again, I wonder if Al Gore even understood what he was talking about at the time. Amazingly, government bureaucrats wonder why people who pay these payroll taxes for their entire lives do not have a large savings when they retire, and then rely on their Social Security checks. Hypothetically, if a private investment firm asked you to pay 12.4% of your income to them for your entire life, and then only gave you less than a 10% return, you would fire the firm and the Securities and Exchange Commission would prosecute the crooks for creating an illegal Ponzi scheme. Still, people seem to accept being cheated by their own government. The common liberal myth is that workers only pay 6.2% for payroll taxes. That is not true. By forcing an employer to pay 6.2% as well, the employee bears the burden for both taxes. The reason why the employee pays for both taxes is because the employer could care less whether the 6.2% went to the government or the employee, but it needs to get paid no matter what. Before hiring a worker, an employer must consider how much it will cost for payroll taxes, among other expenses. Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government. Moreover, if there were no payroll tax, the employer could hire more workers. Overall, the employees always lose because the money would go to the employee in some form or another if the employer were not required to pay the tax. This is also why "taxing the rich" hurts the poor just as much. Eventually, when people give all of their earned money away to the government, and have none for themselves, future poverty will be created in this Country. It is just a never-ending cycle, and has not shown to benefit the poor; it has made them dependent on Government.

Title: Socializing some industries will/can/do improve the economy and society. Content: Rebuttal: Let me define what I'm going against: I am debating against NOT socializing industries. That doesn't mean I'm debating about completely privatizing an industry or industries. First of all, my opponent has to define his/her bill. Does he/she believe that the prison industry, the insurance industry and the education industry must be completely socialized- eradicating every privatized company that exist in each industry he/she mentions? What terms are you associating with this bill? Would you be willing to support a semi-privatized system? Be specific. 1.a/b/c) Firstly, let me define what I mean by flexibility. One major developments have forced policy makers to reconsider the option of private prisons management. Prison Crowding. From 1980-1994, the increase of inmates was "200 percent to nearly 1.7 million" (Pratt et al.). The reliance on incarceration has resulted in a demand for prison space and the public sector cannot match in supply. The public sector depends on the private sector in almost every state in the US to some extent in correctional services. Also, the competitive marketplace motivates the private prisons to perform efficiently, the said concept hosted by the Public Choice Theory. http://archive.epinet.org... 2.a) The contender makes a point stating the role of privatized health insurance, being that of, and I quote, "[for]health services such as boob jobs" but he/she fails to acknowledge that "boob jobs" aren't the only concern when it comes to specialized medical problems. I'm pretty sure chiropractic or psychological treatments are deemed necessary. Limiting private health cares role to cosmetic surgery is silly. There are many other problems out there that aren't covered by health care. Doctors that co-exist in a socialist system aren't paid as much (limited hours of work) which is shown in their lack of willingness to work with patients in regards to their availability and this fact adds to the long list of waiting patients. http://www.milliondollarjourney.com... b) the length of line ups is significantly less than the length of line ups in public health. -Private Room: The preferences of a patient need to be taken into consideration. If the patient can pay for the private health care, why not? Again, I need you to specify to what level you wish to socialize and industry. If all services include current private services, were to be socialized, then taxes would be paid for things like "boob" jobs for other people. c) My opponent is wrong when he/she says that there are no benefits in private health care when in reality, people with jobs do get benefits from their workplace. 3.a) In my opponents refutation, he/she claims that, and I quote "...that data shows that public universities are less expensive even though they provide a better education and better job prospects." No where in his/her sources did I see anything that would back up this statement. It is a choice someone has to practice their post secondary education in a for-profit school. Socializing the educational industry isn't going to please the very many applicants that wish to get into private schools, especially that are world renowned. As for expenses go, the choice to go to a private school was that of the student and therefore he/she must face the monetary challenges that come with this. If my opponent can prove with statistics that public provides far better education, as he/she claims, then the above quote can be legitimized but seeing as how my opponent fails to do so, this claim is baseless. Other: I live in Canada and therefore live in a socialized system where a lot is covered other than dental, optical, homeopathic, physical rehabilitation, psychological and mental care etc. I am actually supportive for socialization but for debate purposes, I am going against it in all terms. Although, the waiting lines here in Canada are very long, especially for organ donation (transplants) which is covered by the government. Oh by the way, I'm a girl so I'd prefer it if you would refer to me accordingly. Thank you.

Title: Abolish Social Security Content: You started off your argument with the following contentions: "Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. " First off, you're right, social security will not advance us as a country. However, neither is it necessarily a bad thing. Many people, this might come off as rude, are stupid. They don't know how to invest, so if left to their own devices, as you suggested, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Social Security was started for this reason. Second, You said that America will not be able to support it. This is not necessarily true. While more people will be retiring than employing, you have to take into account that you are referring to the baby boom generation, where fewer kids were born. Unless we have another generation like that, Social Security could be sustained, so long as people actually start to get jobs. The system for Social Security is sound, the problem is the people. Without it, people would complain that the government isn't helping them if they aren't working, but but with it, no one works, they retire early or something, if people got jobs and kept them, and didn't retire at a young age, then we could sustain it. The problem is when people aren't keeping their jobs for a long time, or when they retire early. Third, you said that people should be able to invest their own money. I would like to point out that Social Security is not mandatory, as stated in Wikipedia: "Obtaining a Social Security number for a child who is not working is voluntary. Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program. " So if you desire, you can go invest elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be a part of the program, most people just choose to be. You said that the money is not invested or saved at all, but in Wikipedia, it says: "When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U. S. Government bonds". So there is money saved, not all of it is immediately spent. And you're right, it can't be fixed, because like I said, the system is sound. it's the people who retire early, and possibly how much is being given out that is the problem. Now be honest. If you were given (for example) an extra twenty thousand dollars per year due to no Social Security, would you invest it? For you maybe yes, maybe no. I would. But a lot of people wouldn't. They would spend it. Then they would retire and have no money, and complain that the government isn't helping them out after their retirement.

Title: Social Security Content: Hence, the debate will only consist of three rounds: 1st Round (Round 2) - main argument 2nd Round (Round 3) - rebuttals and criticisms of main argument 3rd Round (Round 4) - conclusion This is a basic debate about Social Security in general. For the purposes of the debate, we will use the following description to define Social Security (from Wikipedia): In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs. Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the two Social Security Trust Funds. With a few exceptions, all salaried income, up to an amount specifically determined by law (see tax rate table below), is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. All income over said amount is not taxed. In 2016, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $118,500. With few exceptions, all legal residents working in the United States now have an individual Social Security number. Indeed, nearly all working (and many non-working) residents since Social Security's 1935 inception have had a Social Security number because it is required to do a wide range of things, e. g. paying the IRS and getting a job. In 2015, Social Security expenditures totaled $750.5 billion for OASI and $146.6 billion for DI. Income derived from Social Security is currently estimated to reduce the poverty rate for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10% The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just west of Baltimore. I will mainly be arguing against Social Security as it stands today, meaning I favor having the law repealed and replaced and will present alternate programs and methods to prepare for retirement which I feel are better than Social Security. My opponent will defend Social Security and argue that Social Security, as it stands today, is the best method for workers to financially prepare for retirement than an alternative method. Good Luck!

Title: Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street Content: Another point the proposition could have made but did not is that Wall street is pushing for privatization of pension funds: The opposition's answer:The only reason the U.S financial services industry has favored private pension funds is because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees(incl. premiums) on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. The N.P.V(net present value) of payments of financial fees to private companies in the case of privatizing securities will be a dramatic profit of $940 billion over 75 years. [[Austan Goolsbee, "The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers", pdfsmall.gif PDF, 8 pp, September 2004.]] However, such funds can never benefit the ordinary citizens of the U.S and other market-based economies. For the sole reason that it is too risky. While and we have said this before; for economies that are largely bank-based the market and thus private pension funds play a rather unimportant insignificant role in terms of citizen welfare. As companies/schemes/funds rise and fall based on their relations with prominent banks and not on the ups and downs of markets; in a market economy once pension funds are privatized wall street benefits, the public is duped and most(if not all) of us are victimized by financial scams of the kind noted earlier. The market is unpredictable; we the citizens of these nations are not equipped with the financial expertise required to handle our own finances. Wall street is wary of the tricks of the trade and how to bend the rules to favor finance gurus. Betting on two opposite future outcomes is one such tactic. If everyone was taught finance in school things would be different; however, that is not presently the case. We can not set the public up for disasters it has faced in the past, that too not at an old-weak age; knowing that the factors contributing to the dismal effects of free Marketisation/Marketization still exist.

Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on

Title: Personal Retirement Accounts should replace Entitlements Content: Thanks for accepting. As per say the resolution, I will advance the notion that personal accounts should be used for personal retirement security rather than government entitlement programs. C1: Personal Accounts Generate Higher Returns Social Security has an annual rate of return of 1.23%. [1] The S&P 500 has about a 7% CAGR after administrative costs are taken in. [2] This is the average, so it includes both the horrible years like 2008 and the great years like 1998. Assuming that the person had the average household income of $43,000 [3], worked for 35 years and had a retirement lasting 12 years, we get drastically different results regarding the two choices. § Social Security (12.4% payroll tax), provides a retirement balance of = $234,330, or $1,627.30 a month. § Personal Account (12.4% rate) provides a retirement balance of = $788,674.57, or $5,476.91 a month. As we can see, personal accounts invested fully in the S&P 500 that yield just the average return of this index result with a fabulously high value, that would provide excellent retirement security. Since Social Security has such a low rate of return, people who invested in the stock market could easily invest lower percentages of their income while getting a higher return for their retirement. For example, using the income used earlier, one could invest only 4% of their income in the stock market, and still have a higher retirement balance, while having over 8% higher take home pay (before including Medicare payroll savings). To conclude, personal accounts invested in the S&P or other securities would create much higher balances for a secure retirement compared to Social Security. C2: Improves the Economy Having a huge infusion of wealth into the stock market makes the value of stocks go higher. This generates greater capital for businesses, which allows them to make critical investments in America through business expansion, wealth accumulation, investing in capital goods, or by increasing R&D. When businesses are allowed to use their wealth to pursue their self interest, society is better off with improved economic growth. Payroll taxes discourage hiring. By eliminating these taxes, you likewise get more hiring and employment. In fact, some studies have pointed out an increase of more than 10% more jobs in the long run, by cutting payroll taxes by 10 points, or more than 3% more jobs in the short run. Assuming that individuals set aside 8% of their income, using the transitive property, this means job creation of more 11.5 million new jobs from a conservative estimate. [4] (this includes the elimination of Medicare payroll taxes.) Economic growth leads to lower unemployment and higher wages, and thus a greater standard of living for society as a whole. Also, Social Security and Medicare together have unfunded liabilities in excess of $121.5 trillion dollars, or more than $1 million per taxpayer. This is devastating, purely diasastrous to the economy. It's purely a message of economic devastation. [5] C4: Economic Liberty ----- Freedom By letting the individual have their own personal account, they are free to choose how they use their money, not acting under government coercion. This economic freedom leads to improved personal wellbeing — and people would have greater take home pay. Personal responsibility would make sure that often-times the money is used prudently and is fit for individual needs. Personal accounts guarantee economic freedom, you are free to choose how you use your money. Wealth accumulated in personal accounts could be passed onto their kin after their death, allowing families to have greater economic security. ----- Tax Relief Payroll taxes are regressive taxes, and specifically harm the poor. The 15.85% of income that the poor pay in payroll taxes alone kills job creation and harms them particularly negatively by reducing their income. In fact, for some ethnic minorities they get back less in benefits more than they pay in. [1] For the average household income, income would rise by $3,375.5, after assuming they set aside 8% for retirement. C5: Historically Safe Investments The 7% CAGR (compounded annual growth rate) for the S&P 500 is the average. This includes both the great years like 1998 and the bad years like 2008. It's the average. Since these stocks are remarkably safe over time, they are safer here than having government mess with it. Politicians have taken hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other projects. With this huge inflow of wealth to the U.S. government, it is likely to be squandered and used for other things. This reduces retirement security for regular Americans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Health Care in Retirement For secure health care during retirement, health insurance retirement accounts (HIRAs) are good options to use. Let's say workers put 2% into their personal account. These funds are invested as to how the worker chooses. We will assume that the return of 7% is used again. After 65, funds are annuitizied, securities are liquidated, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs. The aspect of liquidating assets is completely voluntary. Assuming $43,000 annually; (43,000 x 0.02 = $860) Total = 860 x [1.0736 - 1] - 860 [.07] = $ 127,205.58, or $10,600 a year. As we can see, seniors will have health retirement security they need if this proposal was adopted by voluntary individuals. These funds would optimally supplement their health savings account, which would provide health care security to those in retirement. Conclusion Individuals should be able to have personal accounts to replace entitlements. People will have secure retirement, with high rates of return generated by the stock market. In fact, using just the average return from the S&P 500 would show that personal accounts would dramatically increase wealth for retirees, improve their security, while creating broad prosperity for Americans who are free to choose to invest and save their money where they wish. Without entitlements, we would have a more limited government, with a lower public debt. Personal responsibility would replace Washington's transfers of wealth, that harm the poor by robbing them of large chunks of their income. Ultimately, personal accounts ensure retirement security, and enhances and protects economic liberty. Job creation, and increased investment from businesses and individuals alike makes the economy grow, generating over 11.5 milllion new jobs while improving living standards, and increasing take home pay. Limited government reduces coercion, and a growing economy helps America flourish. It's fair that you own your money because you earned it. You have the liberty to choose how much, and where you invest your money. You have the responsibility for yourself, and to make sure you have a good retirement balance. You have the opportunity to make yourself wealthy in your retirement and help your kids. If you had a stock that had a negative return, or didn't outpace inflation, you would dump it. Then why don't we dump our entitlement programs? Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.getamericaworking.org... [5] http://usdebtclock.org...

Title: Pensions for Government Employees and Social Security should be abolished... Content: While this is my first debate, I see it is customary to start with definitions: A pension is an arrangement to provide people with an income when they are no longer earning a regular income from employment. In the US, government employees are among the last to receive pensions. Social Security in the US covers a number of social welfare and insurance policies, but since my opponent has attached it to a debate about pensions, I will define it as the social security retirement benefits, which function similar to pensions. If my opponent will be so kind as to respond that he agrees or disagrees with my definitions. Because this debate is about two programs, while similar in function, are of enormously different consequence, I will divide my argument against abolishing them into two parts. Social Security- No one can work forever. Those in jobs that require manual labor will eventually be unable to physically perform them, while in other positions, those of advancing age will find it difficult to compete in areas such as energy and salary. Also while age discrimination is reproachful, it does exist and is virtually impossible to enforce against- leaving employees of a certain age at a disadvantage for finding and keeping jobs. Retirement is a part of life and, for most, a pleasant one. Since the phase out of pensions millions of Americans rely on social security as their primary (often sole) source of income after retiring(1). While some workers enroll in 401k programs and other retirement savings accounts, this is not an option for everyone. Notably- non-working widows or widowers and those with expenses that meet or surpass their income. Additionally, many people are short-sighted, or simply bad with money. While this is not an attractive trait, social security legally requires these people to save. Abolishing social security would push these people into welfare or disability programs once they were beyond an age where they could feasibly work. This would be need to be funded by responsible taxpayers, penalizing those who thought ahead. Social security is notorious for being "borrowed from" by politicians who want to fund other programs and aren't interested in problems that will arise after their term limit. However, rather than abolish the victim of this action as well as other government mismanagement, the solution should be to elect more competent officials. Pensions- Though not necessary for basic survival, pensions are a benefit that rewards loyalty and service. While the private sector no longer has the luxury of pensions, the sour grapes of the private sector should not stop those working for the government from receiving pensions. To explain using a over the top analogy: If it was private sector policy to set their employees on fire when they made mistakes and government workers were not subject to this treatment, where should the correction be made? The private sector, of course. The lack of pensions in the private sector are a component of the downturn in employee treatment that should not be reflected anywhere. That is the basis of my case at the moment. It's not particularly extensive because I honestly can't think of many reasons anyone would want to do away with pensions and social security. However, my opponent may have reasons I've yet to think of. I await his reply. ___________________________________ (1) . http://seniorjournal.com... . http://www.emergingminds.org...

Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: It is hysterical that you advocate Social Security, yet want to ignore the only means to pay for it (The payroll tax), which I have sufficiently demonstrated is devastating to everyone. I'm sorry; you must defend the payroll tax if you advocate Social Security, and sadly you chose an indefensible position. In short, you lose the argument unless you can defend the payroll tax, which you have conceded you cannot. Yes, we could get rid of the payroll tax, and just install a "much more" progressive tax than we have, but that is just advocating socialism. It is advocating socialism because you would have to come up with another $500+ billion from the people who already contribute $804+ Billion to the government coffers. Even if you are going to squabble over the exact value that it would cost, you are still advocating the most massive redistribution of wealth program that America has ever seen. Furthermore, if you think jobs are going overseas, watch what happens when the government takes all the money from the people who create the jobs, goods, and services that make our society work. I find it wonderful that I have pushed you all the way in a corner having to defend socialism just to get social security to work. You are hanging yourself with your own words, and I have just torn your argument to shreds. In order to get around your failing argument, you assert that you must only prove reasonable doubt that I am wrong. While I have more than established reasonable doubt, you certainly have much more of a burden if you advocate a policy that uses coercion and violence to take money from working people and then places them in a situation where they need the money back when they retire. You cannot get around the weakness of your arguments by claiming you owe less of a burden. Strangely, you appear to believe that Social Security is not hurting most of the people who receive Social Security benefits. This is wrong; it hurts everyone even if some do not need it to get by. It hurts everyone because everyone is better off when people are able to keep and control their own money. Individuals always know how to spend their own money better than government bureaucrats in Washington. Even those who do not have money to give to the government will be better off from the lower cost of living, which I already outlined above. Jobs are also created when the people have control over their own money, thereby putting money in the pockets of the poor. Amazingly, without finishing your argument, you go off on major tangents. I will begrudgingly address some of these tangents because your arguments are so weak that I win whether or not I address them: "This must be why there are no homeless people in the U.S. today. I'm sure adding more to be cared for by "misc." will turn out well. I mean, Americans are so caring and charitable!" First, according to recent government statistics less that .3% of Americans have ever been considered homeless (http://www.heritage.org...), meaning that most get off of it either by themselves, or by help from charities. Your problem is that you think charity must be intentionally sacrificial; this is a fallacy. By providing a person with a job, you help that person much more than charity, and the economy is helped as well. But, you cannot hire more people if you do not have control of your own money. Are you really advocating a "More Progressive" tax? Moreover, as I indicated before: There is nothing charitable about putting a gun to someone's head to coerce them to give their money to Washington to pay for government programs. You claim that I should take that up with the government, which is just a way to avoid addressing the reality of how the Social Security system works. But, back to your nonsensical argument about keeping the payroll tax for yourself over giving it to the worker. EITHER WAY, IT STILL HELPS SOCIETY AND THE POOR! It allows you to lower prices of goods and services, because that extra savings becomes a profit for you, or you can spend the money somewhere else, thereby providing jobs for others. But, you can also undercut your competitors by paying your workers more, which is just as likely as any of the other choices because beating your competitors can bring you more profit in the long-run. You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation. I don't know who taught you this fallacy? But, an economy under a free-market capitalist system grows, is not static, and transactions of goods and services are freely exchanged. Consequently, we wouldn't need to "give, give, give" as much if the government abolished its programs like social security that destroy the economic growth that creates jobs. The private sector even has a profit incentive to help the disabled. Why? Because, when there is a demand for something, the private sector seeks to fill it. Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on. Still, with unbelievable ignorance, you think that it is good that the people at the top pay all the taxes. I hate to break it to you, but the economic gap is the most meaningless statistic. People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country. This is true even while the wealthy accumulate wealth. "The Rich Get Richer, While the Poor Become Better off as Well." These are percentages of POOR households in the US that own each of these: 97% color T.V. (25% big screen) 73% Microwave 73% own a car (30% own two or more) 78% DVD or VCR 59% Stereo 55% 2 or more tv's 65% clothes washer 76% air conditioning 56% clothes dryer 63% Cable or Satelite TV Only 2% OF THE POOREST AMERICANS had bouts with hunger. 99% of POOR avoid eviction. (http://www.heritage.org...) Your statement about the massive gaps between the rich and poor is Marxist babble, and is simply not how the world works. The following Countries have less of an economic gap than the United States: North Korea, Cuba, China, the Old Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These Countries have a greater economic gap than all the countries above, yet the poor in these Countries are better off: United States, England, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong (I know this is a quasi-Country). In fact, the greatest correlation between how well the poor are doing economically in a country is the amount of capitalism in that Country. Overall, you wanted to advocate Social Security, without having to address the abject harms of the payroll tax. In an attempt to get around this fact, you claim that we can scrap the payroll tax for socialism. This is not a Strawman argument I am making, nor is it a distortion of your argument. This is exactly what your policy advocates. If you want to take back all the arguments you previously made, and start all over, I would advise you to do so. Since I will have no ability to respond to anything you say after this round, you may actually stand a chance. Otherwise, I will just accept my win.

Title: Social Security Content: Social Security..... In my defence of the case I shall be talking about how social security should be changed as well, however I will be arguing why it should not be changed right at this moment.

Title: senior citizens should not and cannot be exposed to such naked risk on moral grounds Content: Senior citizens take the fall: 'A retirement fund that relies on the stock market is simply not a secure benefit...is a sacred compact between the Federal Government and senior citizens.'-[[http://books.google.com/books?id=eaCIX6d3Y5YC&pg=PA4870&lpg=PA4870&dq=pension+funds+privatisation+senior+citizens+take+the+fall&source=bl&ots=7w1L71RHkY&sig=mPDLR2fnKPvY4rsgrAiKw2SytwM&hl=en&ei=p0JrTLqENYiEvAPS8tH1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false]] 'twas argued in this particular congressional hearing that most senile Americans only have the option of risky privatized securities and therefore privatization is the answer. However we feel that makes no sense; If a child starves that does not entail that all children should starve. We should rather offer safer, more reliable funds to old largely incapacitated people rather than privatize all pensions. The vote at the end of this was fairly close; mainly because the President was not very clear on his exact objective. Obama Personal accounts does not solve the issue...I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally It is understood however that Privatizing securities puts older citizens at the risk of being left with no pension by being 'forced out'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)#force-out when it comes to 401 K plans; by not reading the small print in do it yourself retirement schemes and on the whole the public is not rife qualified to handle our own finances and old people need the extra-help. When you are senile the last thing you need is to find out that you don't have retirement pension because you were forced into fishing through financial jargon at a younger age and missed the bottom-line.Insurance policies can also get canceled.The only reliable retirement fund then becomes public/government pension. The removal of that will leave people out on a limb at old-age.An age when we should be sitting comfortably living on definite retirement/old-age funds/benefit.

Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: Before I proceed with any further arguments, let me say that I was unaware of any "overall thesis," besides you being for the Topic sentence and me being against it. Nowhere in your opening argument did I read the words: "...[T]he payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place!" This is not what the debate is about; if it is, your Topic of Debate should have been "The payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place, therefore the payroll tax and social security should be abolished." But that is not what you wrote. My position is that Social Security does not hurt the poor and elderly, and should therefore not be abolished. I am only arguing about the payroll tax to counter your arguments in Round 1; you evidently want the entire debate to be on the payroll tax alone. What it comes down to is that you must prove that Social Security hurts the poor and the elderly, and that it should be abolished for these reasons. I must provide a reasonable doubt that this is not the case. "Briefly, before I address your points, let me mention that you wasted much of your argument claiming that the Social Security system will not go bankrupt. This was nothing but filler because I agree with you! However, it will not go bankrupt so long as it is funded by the payroll tax, like a pyramid structure where the youthful bottom continues to fund the aging top." -Ok... I am not debating whether or not Social Security will go bankrupt, I am debating whether it is bad for the poor and elderly, and should be abolished. "You even brought up the fact that Alan Greenspan suggested increasing the payroll tax to ensure that it stays funded. Yes, this will certainly reach its purpose of funding a terrible system. Nevertheless, none of your lengthy sources used to buttress your response do the slightest to hurt my overall thesis that the payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place!" -See the first paragraph. There *is no overall thesis* except for the topic we are debating. All else is secondary. "First of all, just because they are on social security, does not mean that they need social security. Many well-to-do people reach the age of 65 and get social security checks." -Good. Then Social Security isn't hurting them. "Why are people who are able to save responsibly for retirement still being paid taxpayer-funded checks? Why are they receiving taxpayer money if they have money saved for retirement?" -They are not being hurt by Social Security, so this point is really irrelevant, but the answer would be because they paid into the program: I assume from some of your statements that you would want your money (or at least as much as possible) back from the government that you gave it to. "Moreover, the total number of people who do not need social security is much greater than the tables on page 23 because money that people saved over the years is not considered "income."" -Excellent. Then you get them off of it, and perhaps more money would be available to give to those who do need it, or, alternatively, use the surplus to cut back the payroll tax. "...It is really simple: You take the money away that they could save, and they have no savings." -See my proposal of making the payroll tax, and for that matter *all* taxes, more progressive. I agree the poor should not be taxed in this way. "The fact of the matter is that if you removed social security entirely, the total number of people dependent on the system would decrease simply because they would have 12% more income than they started with." -Allow me to translate into an actual matter-of-fact: If you removed SS entirely, the total number of people dependent on the system would decrease simply because *there would be no system to be dependent on anymore* And if you're already on Social Security or Disability, you would not have 12% more than you started with because if you have no income you are starting from nothing. "The remainder of people would be cared for by friends, family, or foundations that would ensure better care for the elderly than our government." -This must be why there are no homeless people in the U.S. today. I'm sure adding more to be cared for by "misc." will turn out well. I mean, Americans are so caring and charitable! "1) I stated that, "Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government." You asserted that this was "highly unlikely." Let me say this really slowly. If you had a choice to either give $6.20 to the government or $6.00 to your employee, who would you pay? (Jeopardy Music)" -I stand by my assertion that this is highly unlikely. And on your rebuttal: False dichotomy and an appeal to consequences fallacy. It is not a question of who I would rather pay *between the two if I had a choice* because your original argument said only "if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government;" choice is not an option. But to answer your question, I rather keep it if I didn't have to pay it to the government. On the second fallacy, it doesn't matter if you believe that employers will just give this extra 6.2% to their employees - your belief has little to do with the truth-value of your statement. "If you pay your employee $100 an hour and 6.2% has to go toward paying the government, you lose $6.20 per hour. But, if you have that extra $6.20, you can do one of six things:" -Only the first of your six options applies directly to *the* (not an) employee that was previously there - this is the only way that the employee is financially impacted in a direct sense, the sense that counts. -The question wasn't rhetorical, nor was it meant to be - otherwise why on earth would you answer it? "...Forced compassion via violence and coercion is not a noble goal no matter who the money is going toward." -I'm not exactly crazy about the government, but it has its uses. Because I'm sure we'd all just give, give, give for all the things that are provided by the government if there were no taxes. As for your point in the sentence preceding the one I quoted there, talk to the government, not me:) "...[T]o address your concern about the disabled, and children, most of these people are better taken care of by new technology and the private sector than government bureaucracy." -This is simply laughable, but I only have limited space: it's more likely that the "private sector" will screw them over in a worse way than the government did. See above. "But, THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. In fact, they pay all the taxes in this Country already. According to the IRS the top 50% of all tax payers payed nearly 97% of all taxes. The bottom 50% barely paid any! In fact, from 1986 till now, the top 1%'s share of the tax burden has risen from 25% to 37%. The top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of the taxes! During this same time period, the burden shared by the bottom 50% shrunk in half from 6.5% to 3.3%." -GOOD. Considering that the top 1% of households control nearly 35% of the wealth in the U.S., the top 10% control over 71%, and the bottom 40% control 0.2%, this is still not good enough. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu... "The top 50% paid $804 billion." -And rightly so. See above. I suggest you start making points about why Social Security in-and-of itself, not the payroll tax, hurts the poor and the elderly. The same goes for why Social Security, not the payroll tax, should be abolished. History has not fared kindly toward great massive gaps between the poor and middle classes and the bourgeoisie. Unless, of course, you like heads in baskets:)

Title: Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security. Content: Stephen Dick. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. November 19th, 2010: "the American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare. With Republicans back in power, when it comes time to cut spending, they'll be looking at Social Security until the American people tell them to back off. "

Title: Privatizing social security Content: Public supports private social security accounts.

Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently Content: Wouldn't it be better if we privatize CHUGGON?