The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Killerchicken12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

social security should b means tested against the rich

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 166 times Debate No: 94935
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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.
Killerchicken12

Con

Before I make my opening Remarks and Responses, I would like to thank Pro for opening this discussion, and I am looking forward to the debate.

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...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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.
Killerchicken12

Con

The Alpha of your Mis-conception, is that the Rich as if they were one like-minded undivided class are stealing from the poor to rule the Country. It is actually just the opposite. I will address this piece by piece.

1- The Rich are not one Like-Minded class. In fact, they are extremely divided, and could not come together in one "Union" or National rule if their lives depended on it.

2- The "Rich" as a Faction are not ruling the country. Politicians are Ruling the country... People like the Clintons, though they donate to Charity often, they are involved in multiple scandals, and borrow from social security for the Government's benefit.

3- The poor are stealing from the Rich. The Rich pay 70% of the National income Tax, pay for social security yet get nearly 0% or even negative feedback, and are continually robbed in these seemingly "Robin Hood" situations. If only it were that simple.
The Rich are not Running America, The Politicians are. The Rich are Funding America, an Ironic system increasingly poised against the Rich who fund them. The Poor are in this as well, Demanding the Rich pay even more, not only for the Government (Which they already nearly completely support) but wish for the Rich to support them. In the middle of all of this, the Middle class only wants a good, stable life.

Secondly, you throw basic livelihood out like it's terms were clearly defined. Basic Livelihood is Food, Shelter, water, and warmth. Most Americans are currently getting this, in fact more so than any other country. The American Poverty line in the Majority of other countries is considered Middle Class.

Onto your example with 90% of land. That does not make sense. The Rich in America are different than the Rich anywhere else, as they do not generally inherit wealth. They are unique in the fact that they usually start at Nothing, and work their way up to being successful. The Rich are extremely hard workers, usually working more hours, and under more stressful conditions. The Rich own no where near 90% of Public/Private entities, but work hard for every piece of entity they do own. Picture this instead:
You want to by a Ticket to the Fair for 10 bucks because your family cannot currently afford it. Your Father agreed to let you work with him in the house to earn money. After Two days of Long, hard work, you finally make enough money to buy your very own ticket to the fair. but your other Friends aren't as fortunate. They demand you give them 2 Dollars each, because they did some work around their homes too, but were not paid... As if this wasn't bad enough, they are Forcing you to give them the money you worked hard for, they are telling you that you are evil for having this much money, and are working against you to keep you from getting this much money in the Future. If this isn't bad enough, The Children Rob you of 70% of he Cash, and Threaten to take Even more.

Onto your next paragraph, claiming I ignored your previous point. I in fact addressed it directly. Social security in itself is a rigged system, but unlike Government, Business will try to NEVER be in debt. The Private Industry can provide simpler, personalized plans while keeping the costs low due to competition. Government has no competition, so does not attempt to make it's plans better, or cheaper, but merely spends millions of more dollars trying to bail the system out.
To answer your Question more directly, The Retirees will have paid in say, 100 Dollars in a Private Retirement Plan. For this instant money, the Private Business will give back say, 8 Dollars more for every hundred Donated, and the Number will likely Rise quickly due to competition, perhaps to around 10 Dollars 100. The Government currently provides 3 for every 100.

You ask how we balance our Budget with the Privatized plan? The Government no longer has to pay for it's own citizen's retirement funds. Privatizing the system will put the strain on The Rich to provide the best rates for the Poor, making themselves richer in the process. The System will also take away strain for the Government, who has to keep constantly bailing plans out with more Money pulled from places where it is needed.

Thirdly, I am not ignoring the Problem. I am putting the problem on the Private sector, which often thrives under new ways to make money. This plan will free up million of Dollars for the Governments, because they will no longer have to pay for social security and retiree funds. Taxes will have nothing to do with it because the Government will not be paying for it. Privatizing it will make the Rich pay for it, providing lower costs, and causing the Rich to get Richer.

The American economy has been run this way for centuries. Your way is not the Only fair and Ethical way to do it. America is not supposed to be fair, it is supposed to be free. We can't have everyone in the same cost of housing, or in the same paying job. Being completely fair is what you call Communism. Stealing Land from those who worked for it is Communism, Something we spent Thousands of lives trying to defeat. As for Ethical, it is not the only ethical way to do it.

Assuming this only shows you cannot see other people's view points.

To be fair, Raising Taxes on the Rich would work. But keep in Mind, A Middle-class Civilian's pay is deducted 30% by income taxes alone, and then another 5%-12% for State and Property taxes. The Rich pay more than 50%-70% of their earnings, plus 5%-12% in Income Taxes.
Privatizing the System will save the Government millions, providing lower costs, with greater benefit, to more people, while keeping taxes in check.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says the rich dont run the country. i might beg to differ as they are who pulls the strings of politcians. but really this point is irrelvant, even if they dont rule the country, they still have the excess, like my division of land hypothetical illustragtes. con doesn't really give a moral argument for why we should take from everyone to have welfare or fund the governmet when it's more moral to take the excess.

perhaps i shouldn't argue that the poor deserve a better livlihood given they have the necessities genereally. but i would still argue we shouldn't take more from them to fund the government and military when they have so little. this is where taking from the excess makes sense. ie the rich.

you argue the rich dont own a lot of land and didn't inherit it. it doen't matter though, because they still own ninety percent of hte wealth, and an excess share whether it was inherited or not. the limited example where i might agree with you that they should get to keep their money is if someone works eighty hours a week at ten dollars and hour and saves almost all their money and invests it. but this doen't repesent hardly anyone who is rich.

your example is no good cause someone who works for ten dollars isn't rich with excess wealth. you'd have to argue it's okay for somoen to have a million dollars when the others only had ten thousand each out of nine people. you can't really argue this is moral, at least that we should take more from the poor. again when i argue we should take the rich people social security i'm arguing because we need to fund the government and defense.

i may have misundeerstood you. i assumed you'd want to fund social security for current retirees and near ones. the only way you can argue privatizing would fix the situation is to say we won't do that. talk about immoral and irresponsible as heck though if that' what you believe, letting people rot and breaking a promise to them to boot. if you do think they should be supported, you still havaen't addressed how we'd pay for it or the government. so yes if u want to fund social for a number of years you are still ignoring my initial post and havem't said anything in response to change that.
Killerchicken12

Con

On your First Paragraph, you say I failed at giving you a Moral argument, which I have given repeatedly over and over again. Did I not say that the Bible says "You Reap what you Sow"? at what point do you believe that you have a Right to have someone Else's money, just because they have more than you?
No, my friend. If you want a lesson in Morality, I suppose I am obliged to give it.
The Scriptures sayeth "Thou shall reap what Thou hath Sown"
The Scriptures sayeth "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's property"
The Scriptures sayeth "Thou shall not envy"
The Scriptures sayeth "He who doth not work shall not have meate"

You have made the fallacy of bringing morality into politics. Not only this but you completely dis-regard my previous point, which stated that the Wealthy paid for 70% of the U.S. Income Tax. You say the Poor are being taxed? take another 15-20% away for the Middle class, and the Poor are paying at most 1/10 of the Federal Income Tax.

You also seem to say "Taking from the Excess" quite often. I want a legitimate answer. By this do you mean Taking from the Rich, who are supposed to be secure in their Personal belongings, according to the constitution?

You are not clearly defining "The Rich". "Rich" is a perspective. Saying "The Rich" own 90% of the land is an incomplete statement. Add a clear definition for who "the Rich" are, and where the 90% of land they own is Located.

According to theguardian.com (Link is at the Bottom), the lower 90% of America own roughly 22% of the Wealth. You included no Sources for you 90% statistic, and therefore must be dis-regarded as false, or a straight out lie.

Next you claim that the Rich do not work hard. Then I may ask, how can you get rich without working hard? The only way is the Lottery. Take it from me, Someone who works for an American in the top 10% of Society. He is 79. He is not retired. He owns a business which he operates personally 4 hours a day. He owns a farm, which he works every day with his workers. He owns buildings for rent, which he personally cleans up every week. He attends ALL company board meetings, ALL sales applicants, ALL future employees, and he still manages to find time to help his wife do chores around the house. So how can you claim that these people do lesser work than someone who is in the Office for 7 Hours, and then goes home and rests. This man at the age of 79 spends 9 Hours a day doing work to retain his wealth.

Moving on to the ANALOGY I gave. Notice I Capitalized ANALOGY. I am not a Dolt. I know you are not rich with 10 Dollars. It was an ANALOGY to put things in perspective. And By the way, Yes I can Morally argue it is Alright to have one person with a Million, and 9 others with 10,000 Dollars. The One with a Million came up with a Good Idea, or business, and the Others Work for him OR the ones with 10,000 are Lazy Dolts who do not work. Whether it is McDonald's, or the Military, proper Work is ALWAYS open.

WE FINALLY AGREE! It is exactly my point we need to fund the government and Defense! The Problem is that the Rich already pay 70% of the Taxes going into areas like defense.
Social Security is a Drain of Public Funds. Every year the Government spends MILLIONS of Dollars to keep it alive. MILLIONS could be going to our Defense. What I am saying, is that we should let the Private Industry deal with it, and make money off of privatized social security! you have not yet argued WHY this idea economically wouldn't work.




https://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AliHussein 3 months ago
AliHussein
Clear win by Con; although I had a very narrow knowledge about Economics issues, his arguments were clear enough to understand, also Con had a much logical argument unlike Pro who made some inaccurate claims. If I had voting rights, I'll undoubtly vote for Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.