social security should b means tested against the rich
Debate Rounds (3)
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 shouldn't be exempt. balancing the budget is a national security issue, a major problem that needs fixed.
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.
taxing the rich more is moral. it's not fair that a regular person should have to pay for poor people when the rich have excess. i realize the government only spends like ten percent on the working poor, and the rich more than pay for that with current progressive taxes. but social security and medicare involve a lot of subsidizing the poor so i can see rich taxes going higher. plus when the top one percent are getting fifty percent of new income, and everyone else is seeing stagnate or decreasing income, i would focus on the excess.
Taxing the rich more is moral? Theft is defined as the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. Ergo taxes are *literally* theft. Living within the borders of the United States does not imply automatic, non-coerced consent.
Maybe my opponent should go research the 14th ammendment, which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Why should rich people be discriminated against and stolen from for things that are GOOD, we don't tell gay peoplet= that their marriage certificates will cost double because they are gay do we? Therefor we must apply the same logic on both of these scenarios: abolish it. Abolish federal recognition of marriages of any type as well as abolishing Social Security. The private sector is much better at making money than Uncle Sam, and during the Clinton Administration Uncle Sam stole peoples Social Security money, Uncle Sam spends more money on education and healthcare than anyone else, yet we have the sh*ttiest educations and the sh*ttest healthcare.
This is why Milton Freidman said "if you leave the government in charge of the Saharah, in 5 years there will be a shortae of sand." And he was right, therefor Sicia Security should be privatised, and people should be able to control their own retirement. It's their money, they should be able to invest it as they wish.
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.
My opponent seems to think that individuels and experts in finance are somehow financialy irresponsible, whereas the government is somehow more responsible. This is total nonsense, people will not become "impovershed" by old age, my oponent claims this with no real reason to believe it. The private sector is what produces literaly every single cent of wealth in our economy! The government on the other hand produces no real wealth, they only take it from one place to another. So to say that the people who produce nothing, indebt the nation, inflate our currency, and senselessly destroy economic growth upon thebasis of false threats such as global warming, are somehow more responsible than the people who produce EVERYTHING.
Every dollar in circulation and every bit of real wealth is produced by the prvte sector, not the state, therefor the government is innately incapable of creating real capitol in peoples retirement savings. Only of stealing real wealth from others in a variety of mannerisms. For example, the government gets money to fund Scial Security either by:
1. People paying into the system, stealing from those who pay into the system.
2. Taking money from taxation, stealing from tax payers.
3. Printing money, stealing money from everyone who owns dollars through inflation
4. Loaning money, stealing future tax money through the intrest on this debt as well as money which belongs to future generations by them having to pay it off eventualy.
As you can see, the government is incapable of doing aything productive, only of stealing from those that are. Tus they cannot be more responsible or productive than the private sector by definition.
By excess wealth you mean wealth that the government stole from others, that's not excess, that is money which belongs to someone else, who produced it via productive activity in a real economy, which you want to steal and give to those who only bog down the economy. My freind, you are thinking like a 4 year old brat, "someoneelse has something that I don't, so I am going to go steal it because it should be mine."
Communists are inhereintly selfish and immature.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 6 months 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.