The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

this should be the outline for reforming social security

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/2/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 236 times Debate No: 107462
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

linate

Pro

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
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Here are 5 facts about Social Security from an article.

"When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 80 years ago this month, he said that while “[w]e can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life … we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”

In the decades since then, Social Security has developed into one of the most popular federal programs, though that popularity is tempered by concern over its long-term financial outlook. In a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, for instance, 50% of Gen Xers and 51% of Millennials said they believed they would receive no Social Security benefits at all by the time they’re ready to retire. Earlier this year, 66% of Americans said taking steps to make Social Security financially sound should be a top priority for President Obama and Congress this year, placing it fifth among 23 issues asked about.

SDT-next-america-03-07-2014-2-08
But any reform plan entailing cuts to benefits likely would face an uphill battle for public support. The 2014 Pew Research survey also found large majorities across all generations agreeing that Social Security benefits shouldn’t be reduced; even among Millennials, the generation furthest from retirement, only 37% said future benefit reductions should be considered.

There’s often considerable confusion as to just how Social Security works, which is perhaps not surprising given the program’s complexity. (The original 1935 Social Security Act was 29 pages long; the current law, much amended and expanded, runs nearly 2,600 printed pages.) Here’s a primer on the program:

1. Social Security touches more people than just about any other federal program. At the end of 2014, according to the most recent trustees’ report, some 59 million Americans were receiving retirement, disability or survivors’ benefits from the system; the total cost was $848.5 billion. 166 million people paid payroll taxes into the system.

2. Social Security is, and always has been, an inter-generational transfer of wealth. The taxes paid by today’s workers and their employers don’t go into dedicated individual accounts (although 32% of Americans think they do, according to the 2014 Pew Research survey). Nor do Social Security checks represent a return on invested capital, though you might be forgiven for thinking so since the “personalized Social Security statements” that used to be mailed out once a year and now are available online detail your payment history and projected monthly benefits. Rather, the benefits received by today’s retirees are funded by the taxes paid by today’s workers; when those workers retire, their benefits will be paid for by the next generation of workers’ taxes (caveat: see Point 3). Your benefit amount is based on your earnings history and age at retirement, not on how much you and your employer paid in Social Security taxes (although for most people, taxes paid are closely tied to their earnings).

3. Right now, Social Security has plenty of assets. For much of its history, Social Security was a strictly pay-as-you-go system, with current tax receipts funding current benefits. That changed in 1983, when Congress (as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the program) raised the payroll taxes that provide the bulk of Social Security’s revenue, to build up a cushion for the coming onslaught of Baby Boomer retirees. For nearly three decades, the system took in far more revenue than it paid out in benefits; the surplus was invested in special non-tradeable Treasury bonds, with interest credited to the system’s two trust funds (one for old-age and survivors’ benefits, the other for disability payments). As of July 31, those trust funds together held $2.83 trillion in Treasuries. (Some people characterize that as the government “borrowing from” or “raiding” Social Security, but the system is in essentially the same position as any other investor who buys Treasuries.)

4. But since 2010, Social Security’s cash expenses have exceeded its cash receipts. Negative cash flow last year was about $74 billion, according to the latest trustees’ report, and this year the gap is projected to be around $84 billion. While the credited interest on all those Treasuries is still more than enough to cover the shortfall, that will only be true until 2020. After that, Social Security will begin redeeming its hoard of Treasuries for cash to continue paying benefits – as was the plan all along.

Social Security
5. Social Security’s combined reserves likely will be fully depleted by 2034, according to the trustees’ intermediate forecast. The disability-insurance trust fund could run dry as soon as the end of 2016, while the old-age and survivors’ fund is expected to be depleted in 2035 – assuming it’s not tapped to backfill the disability fund. (The Congressional Budget Office, in a separate report that uses somewhat different demographic assumptions, projects that the disability fund will be exhausted in fiscal 2017 and the old-age and survivors’ fund in calendar 2031; if the funds are combined, they would be exhausted in calendar 2029.) The exact depletion dates depend, of course, on future demographic and economic trends. After the reserves are exhausted, the system still will be receiving tax revenue, but it will only be enough to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits – unless Congress changes the benefit formulas, raises the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income (currently $118,500)." [1]

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org...

Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

what exactly is your point?

you cited this, which is exactly what ive said:
"After the reserves are exhausted, the system still will be receiving tax revenue, but it will only be enough to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits " unless Congress changes the benefit formulas, raises the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income (currently $118,500)." [1]"

you mention that a lot of people dont like the idea of reducing benfits, but the statement has no context. do they not want to reduce just the rich like donald trump and the richeest men the world? or are they just against their own benefits being reduced? i mean, even if you didn't want to reduce anyone's benefit, i dont know if that's mathematically possible. if all you do is raise the payroll cap that alone could only solve the problem for a couple generations. and, if you got into the 'make this more about insurance for the less well off', that is essentially cutting benefits in the mean time while we wait for the system to function more properly.

it looks like you just posted an fyi statement, general information. but haven't given a clear statement on your position.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

"you mention that a lot of people dont like the idea of reducing benfits, but the statement has no context. do they not want to reduce just the rich like donald trump and the richeest men the world? or are they just against their own benefits being reduced? i mean, even if you didn't want to reduce anyone's benefit, i dont know if that's mathematically possible. if all you do is raise the payroll cap that alone could only solve the problem for a couple generations. and, if you got into the 'make this more about insurance for the less well off', that is essentially cutting benefits in the mean time while we wait for the system to function more properly."

Social Security should not be reformed.

That is my stance.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

if nothing is done, everyone will automatically get a pay cut, that's the law. so you'd rather grandma get her benefits reduced, instead of given trump and other billionaires a pay cut first? you see no other policy that we could do, other than to cut grandma's paycheck?
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

The answer to both questions is yes!

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
This is interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.