Resolved: The US should raise the Social Security age of eligibility

Pro's whole case rests on ONE unproven assumptionPro had the burden of proof, meaning he had to provide two things in this debate - a problem and a solution. His problem was a worker-beneficiary ratio of 2.1. But he has never justified WHY that is a problem. It is not enough to simply assert that number proves a problem that must be overcome, rather, pro had the burden to prove that problem. This is particularly true when I have directly challenged whether or not that ratio is a problem, and when I have provided plenty of analysis, coupled with international examples, to show that it isn't. If pro has failed to show a problem, then the presumption must be that there is no solution, since there isn't a problem to solve in the first place. Pro accuses me of ignoring numbers, which is unfair, untrue, and most importantly deeply ironic, since pro has never answered for their own numbers. The ratio and the costIt's not enough to assert my examples are "irrelevant". I appreciate America is in a tough time right now, but the reason you are in a tough time is not having too many beneficiaries. That might be contributing in some small way, but it is not the cause of your problems. This is why my examples are relevant - they prove that it is possible to run a fair economy with far worse worker-beneficiary ratios than 2.1, so the problem must be somewhere else. Other than that quick assertion, pro's whole case merely asserts that there needs to be "a change to the current system", or that a couple "should not be paying for a person’s entire income" because that "is entirely unreasonable", or that my model would be "drastically worse". His job in this debate was to prove these things, not assert them and expect voters to just take his moral judgements as law. This is especially true when his entire argument depends on that ratio. However, I also proved last round the ratio won't stabilize at 2.1. Currently the birth rate is too low and stable for that. The reason we're paying so much is because the baby boomers and their immediate offspring have somewhat larger families than us younger generations. The ratio of 2.1 was caused by the relative instability of an aging workforce. When the birth rate stabilizes, the retirement rate stabilizes when that generation retires. So after about 2040 when the smaller generation from the 70s retires, things will go back to stable. This is the "inbuilt mechanism" I cite - that generations are of different sizes, and that they eventually die. I said right from the beginning that it's quite possible to run a deficit as long as you know how and when you can pay it all back. We do - we can pay it back when the smaller generations retire, because paying for a larger generation will always cost more than paying for a smaller one. This is why the trust fund has never been relevant to the debate - even if there was no trust fund, there would still be no problem. TaxesThere are many ways America could lower taxes. Pro seems to push this as the key benefit of his model because that helps with saving, and some weird point about encouraging families to be compassionate (I say weird because to make policy on the basis that every single family will be equally compassionate, especially for those people who have no family to support them, actually undermines the whole point of compassion). Thing is, it isn't a benefit to his model if those same people still do need to be supported in other ways. Moreover, there are plenty of expenditures (*cough*military*cough*) that America is already spending far too much money on, and which would seriously cut down those taxes. There are other ways costs might be affected, of course, such as lost productivity, workplace injuries, and even disability insurance (if that were actually true). I'm all for helping people to save for their retirement, but taking money from retirees is not the way to do that. My claim was that the most important thing for young people to have is actually jobs not low taxes, which his model undermines. While unemployment is on a downward trend, that's not to say that implementing a program that creates unemployment for youth is ever a good idea - let alone when it is still high. Moreover, a lot of that unemployment reduction is not from younger workers. I think Pro also ignored my points about relative affordability and taxing estates (of course I'm not arguing for changing the current system, that's why I'm con and you're pro, but what does that have to do with estates of larger generations? )Old people deserve itIf the same people go on other benefits, be they disability or the 70% benefit, the people still pay that cost. It's just shifting things around and adding bureaucracy, totally undermining the extent of pro's tax benefits. Of course ultimately it's all just a nice way of putting the fact that old people get less. You don't get disability for being a poor worker, but for being disabled. And the 70% benefit still means you pay 70% of the cost to an even broader age range, so it doesn't even save all that much, while it also fails to give the elderly enough money to live if they don't have savings (bearing in mind that even 100% benefits isn't exactly a great salary). I've explained at length why old people should get the retirement benefit. Pro needed to defeat these reasons to win the debate. I explained that the elderly need to be shown tangible respect, because they are of value to society. Pro did not rebut this reason. I explained that retirement is a reward for a generation. Pro dropped this as the debate went on. I explained the elderly need to be looked out for as the weakest members of our society. Strike three, pro did not rebut this reason directly. He did try to rebut my example with the ten-year-olds rather late in the debate. All his reasons for not hiring 10-year-olds, however, also apply to older people - they have reduced mental power, should be focusing on other ways of benefiting society, will ruin their bodies through work etc. And for unemployment rates by age, very few old people would be employed either, because it's normal for people to become worse at their work as they get older, while a 10 y/o is likely to become better. Morally, forcing somebody to work to their grave is a bad thing, if forcing somebody to work from birth is also a bad thing. This is all still state-sponsored ageism because it gives old people less of a value by giving them fewer benefits. Incentive to retireThe lower the benefit that beneficiaries get, the lower their incentive to retire. Pro's only rebuttal to my numerous examples of analysis from our first round of clash, including all the consequences of poor work performance on the firm, their stakeholders, and most importantly the individual, can be basically summed up in two words - prove it. So I did with that pretty graph from last round. Having conclusively proved my point, pro has no persued it any further. The reason why this destroys pro's case is because creating an incentive to retire is the key benefit of the retirement system. If pro doesn't want retirement, why pay money to seniors at all? It's just creating another arbritrary standard. But the effects of that standard are problematic, and these problems - millions of lives ruined (since there are millions of people pro wants to deny benefits to and force to work on to survive) - far outweigh the minor inconveniences of not solving a problem that doesn't exist. ConclusionThere are good reasons why the retirement age is where it is. At one point pro tried to say it was arbritrary - he dropped that after I showed his standard was even worse. What is at stake here are American values, integrity, and respect for the elderly, all for the sake of shirking from a challenge that Americans don't even have to do anything to resolve. The resolution is negated.