We shall abolish Social Security and replace it with R.E.I.A.G

Everybody must be able to retire Con has completely misinterpreted what I mean when I say “everybody must be able to retire”. I do not mean that the plan is only suitable to those who are in a financial position to retire, but that the plan makes it financially suitable for people to retire by 60. 54,000 dollars annually is enough for anyone to retire on, the key word here is able. Con has essentially changed the sentence from “everybody must retire by 60” instead of “everybody must be ABLE to retire by 60.” I never said we must abolish Social Security for those that need it; I said we must abolish social security for those that will be using Government investment accounts. For a good 42 years, we will need Social security for those that never got enrolled in the Government investment accounts, but after those 42 years, audios Social Security. Everybody must be able to enroll in it by 18 The key word here is everybody. I mean that we cannot only be able to offer the Government investment accounts to a small population of our country in order to make it work. 100% of the nation that turns 18 by 20__ must be enrolled. My plan defended 1)Con makes a useless point here. The number of 18 year olds in the U.S. does indeed fluctuate from year to year, but not drastically. Meaning there is not going to be 1,000,000 18 year olds next year if there are only 540,000 18 year olds this year. What does it matter if the Government has to invest 65 billion instead of 54 billion? Both can be done. As for the people over 18, Social security will still be available to them as I am only abolishing Social Security for all 18 year olds and thereafter starting in the year 20__ 2) Con makes two valid points- (A)That stock market's growth fluctuates. What I meant by average was the 42 year average, not a stock markets individual year growth. Even if the stock market only grew 2% one year, 12% the next year, and 21%, It would still equal the same number as if a number only grew 10% for three years. Ex. 10*1.02=10.2. 10.2*1.07=10.914. 10.914*1.21=13.2 10*(1.10)^3=13.1. As you can see, even a stock whose growth fluctuates has the same growth as a stock whose growth is constant. So even if we have a great recession like we are in now or the one seen in 1929, but also have a large periods of growth such as the rolling 20’s and the 80’s decade, it’ll all balance out to nice cozy 10%. (B)How to choose which stocks to invest in. This is really only a dilemma for an individual investor who isn’t investing that much money. But 54 Billion dollars will buy thousands of stocks and therefore diversify the Government investment account portfolio. And Con is under the assumption that we will be buying out entire companies’ worth of stocks. But I said that we would divide the money EQUALLY amoung the stocks, meaning instead of buying 500 million dollars worth of solar panels, we will only buy 200 million dollars. The Government investment accounts will have the most diversified portfolio ever to be seen before. Individual stock holders can be hurt or even destroyed during a recession, but with such a large amount of money invested in the stock market and with such a highly diverse portfolio, the Government investment accounts are infallible. 3) You have made a huge mistake here. You have forgotten that the accounts are STILL growing at 9.76% a year. 711,000*.0976= 69,393 dollars. 69,393-54,000= 15393 dollars. So even if we do take 54,000 dollars out of the Government investment account, for that year, it’ll actually GROW by 15,393 dollars. Ever heard of living off of interest? My math defended I have shown above why fluctuations in population and stock market growth doesn’t matter, so no need to go any further here. And why does Con say that investing money into the stock market not make it stronger? We are not adding 54 billion dollars to the stock market; we are buying 54 billion dollars of the stock market that is already there. Anytime you buy something, you make the person or company you bought it from stronger. The entire reason we are still in a recession right now is because NOBODY is buying anything. It is just basic economics that spending spurs growth. And as for wealth distribution gap, again I have already shown how the money will NOT go away after 13 years. Also, this wealth has to be coming from somewhere, and it is obviously not coming from the lower and middle class as they are not making money from the stock market. So the only place that the wealth can come from is the wealthy. My plan is still Genius Con’s interpretation of a genius plan is a plan that is not changeable. But every plan that has been considered “genius” has changed. Democracy is a considered a “genius” plan, but it has changed to meet the requirements of a countries need. Capitalism is considered a genius plan, but it too has changed from its original form to become practical. Even genius ideas and theories, such as the theory of quantum physics has changed. This may be con’s interpretation of a genius plan, but my interpretation of a genius plan is a plan that works better than any other. Conclusion I have refuted every single one of con’s arguments and shown the various flaws in them as well. My plan is still workable, and that is without having to have changed anything. It is starting to look like my plan is still genius even to con’s narrow interpretation of genius. Also, would it make you feel better if I changed my age status to 35 so my plan seems more credible? Does it matter who presents the plan, as long as it works? I guess I’ll find out in the next round.