The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

social security should b means tested against the rich

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 94729
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




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 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.

Debate Round No. 1


con and i simply disagree on whether it's okay to tax the rich more. it's better to raise their taxes instead of cutting benefits, i agree it's not ideal to change what we said we'd do per their benefits, but it's essentially the same as just raising their taxes, which is necessary. i could see having everyone have some skin in the game and find more general ways to fix social security, but the focus should be on the rich. afterall it's hte rich who should be more respnsible for borrowed against social security to fund general governmnt and defense. are they going to get away with not paying that back? it's not so radical of an idea or disagreeable to just decrease their benefits.

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.

Debate Round No. 2


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.


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.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
PRO contends that the top 10% or earners be cut from SS and SS should be cut by 15-20% in an effort to balance the budget.
CON rebuts rich people should not be made to suffer because they are rich; the alternative is privatization of SS. To balance the budget, abolish social programs and reform education.
PRO defends eliminating SS benefits to the rich essentially taxes them more preferable over cutting benefits. It's morally correct the rich have more.
CON differs in opinion, it's not moral to tax the rich, it's theft and cites the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment is off topic. The clause presented covers protection of US citizenship, has nothing to do with any of CON's claims. PRO does not pick up on this error. He further states taxing the rich more is discrimination. Privatization of SS would be more efficient and people would have control over their retirement money.
PRO asserts SS partially subsidizes the poor. They will remain poor if SS is privatized, loosing this subsidy.
CON, the government does not produce wealth nor contributes to the economy; they cannot create retirement savings capital. It's theft to take from the wealthy who produce economic benefit and give to those who bog down the economy.

Comment: PRO makes a contention but does not explain fully how this is to be accomplished. CON rebuts that government is inefficient, does not contribute to the economy and steals from those who do. These points are uncontested by PRO which gives greater weight to the argument against means testing.

Critique: Neither side uses sources to back their claims. The debate was a series of ill informed mere assertions on both sides. Truman at times walks off the right wing cliff to the realm of nonsensical; which PRO makes no effort to rebut. If either side took the time to do some research this would have been a far more interesting debate. Conduct to PRO, CON resorted to name calling.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago
i forgot to add that even if we privatize ss we still have to fund current and near retirees and it's going to cause a massive budget problem. for all the reasons i stated, we might as well mean test.
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
You posted this twice but...

A family of 3 who gets roughly $1000 a month from Social Security should have their income cut....really? They can already barely afford to feed themselves. Your idea is worse than your grammar.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments