Abolish Social Security
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
Thank you for this debate, and good luck.
In turn, I would like to thank my opposing debater and wish them good luck as well.
The first problem that needs to be addressed about your arguments is the fact that you used a universally unreliable source, Wikipedia. The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study of the accuracy of Wikipedia. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was 162. Members of Wikipedia can't create "information pages" where, they can list references, but they can also be edited. Thus, anyone can make up a false "fact". For debate's sake, I will accept your information as reliable.
The opposition stated some Americans are stupid and if left to their own devices, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Let me just say that with the social security system continuing on, people would still end up on the streets after retirement because the current workforce cannot sustain the retirement population! People who are in that situation today blame the social security system, but if left up to their own devices, they have no one to blame but themselves. This would encourage American citizens to work so they can earn money to invest in their retirement.
Social security was not started to get people off the streets as you stated. It was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 to get people working and out of the Great Depression, so that is completely erroneous.
You stated that while more people will be retiring than employing that I have to take into account that I am referring to the baby boom generation(which I was not) where fewer babies were born. If you had researched and gotten information from a reliable source, the baby boom generation was when there was a dramatic increase in the number of births from 1946 to 1964. Once again, you are completely wrong.
I would like to rebuttal the argument where you stated that the Social Security system is sound, but the problem is the people. This is in every way possible, untrue. Social security is built on people, it is sustained by people, and it is broken down by people. Without the people in the social security system, it would be completely corrupt. The Social security system is the problem. It is in a multi-million dollar deficit and counting. It cannot guarantee that people of the future will be able to even have a penny of the retirement money that they are supposedly going to acquire later on. You said that people retire early with the system still in place and people would complain, so shouldn't the social security system be abolished? Ultimately contradicting your standing point in this argument.
Once again, you stated a rather false fact from none other but, Wikipedia. Social security IS mandatory. There is no working American citizen that isn't pay a part of their income to the social security system. You might have misunderstood because illegal immigrants don't have to pay social security because well, they sneaked into our country. They way Social security works is that based on your income you pay a tax rate of 7 to 15 percent that goes to the Social security system. This then goes into the form of a beneficiary check and gets sent to a retiree.
The excess dollars that are put into the U.S government bonds then goes to the U.S treasury to pay of the deficit they are currently in! Again, it's a multi-million dollar debt.
Of course the system can't be fixed, therefore it is flawed and should be abolish as soon as possible. There will be no way that the Social security system will work in the future because the retirement population is simply too large and the workforce is too small. You're right people do retire early, but what can you or the system do about it? Nothing, so you just proved my point further. SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED. The Social security system has taken into consideration that the amount of money that goes out to the beneficiaries is too much so they have tried changing the tax rate 73 times. And yet, the system is still crippling! That's 73 times that the Social security has prove detrimental to our society.
True, some people would spend the extra 20,000 dollars due to no Social Security, but where would that money be put into? The American economy! With the current economic crisis, America needs every dollar it can get, so ending social Security would be beneficial for our nation. The people who did not save for their retirement could complain, but if they take legal action all it takes would be one phrase to prove them wrong. You had the money, you had the chance to save, but you didn't-so good luck buddy.
I advocate my fellow debaters to vote in affirmation of this debate because the above statements made should prove that Social security is detrimental to our American society and with it's dismantlement, we could improve our American economy.
Thank you for the good arguments.
questionmark forfeited this round.
niftyjanet forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.