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

First, a clarification of my viewpoint. The age of eligibility should be raised to 70, current beneficiaries will, for lack of a better term, be grandfathered in, and the age will be raised somewhat gradually, so people have time to change their expectations. Now onto the debate. Con opens up his argument by saying that “life expectancy for those who reach old age” is pretty much the same. This is blatantly false, as shown by his own source, which shows a six-year increase in life expectancy for males who reach 60, and a 4-year increase for those that reach 70. For females, it is eight and six years longer once they reach the two cited ages. As stated before, this means that people are receiving benefits for significantly longer, and since the average life expectancy is higher, more people are receiving these benefits in the first place. I addressed this in the previous round. He then claims that by the age of 70, people are no longer fit to work. However, if the individual is no longer fit to work, then that individual will be able to receive disability insurance (1), or be able to receive partial benefits early, as is done now. Currently, at age 62, one can decide to receive 70% of full benefits (2). This age would naturally raise along with the age of eligibility for full benefits. If the age of eligibility for full benefits were raised to 70, then the age for partial benefits would probably be raised to at least 65, and people could still get them. That being said, even if the age were not raised for the partial benefits, it would still work in the same way for my case. Essentially, if a person can no longer work at that age, they are still covered by disability insurance, or they can just opt to receive lesser benefits. Incentive to retire “Raising the retirement age creates perverse incentives for people unable to save because they don’t earn so much income, to keep working much longer, as otherwise they can’t survive. ” Well, that is the general incentive for people to work. Raising the retirement age does not create that incentive. “And if they lose their job, they are usually left out in the cold” This is addressed in my point about disability benefits and the 70% benefits one can decide to receive early. “Largely because the pension makes people less reliant on their work for an income” By extension, they also would be less reliant on Social Security, which is separate from work pensions and state pensions. That being said, if the age where benefits were received were to be raised, the incentive to work would still be there. People only retire at 65 because they expect that they will be able to retire at 65 and be financially okay. General implications that seniors are underperforming I would like to see proof that seniors are underperforming workers. In the professions they are in, if they are unable to switch jobs, they are at this point likely to be very experienced and skilled at what they do. That being said, if they are unfit to work, they can receive disability insurance or they can just opt to receive 70% benefits earlier in. Retirement is Compensation “Retirement is a reward for a generation” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose for Social Security. To cite the background information provided last round, when it was first implemented, and for many years after that, the retirement age was higher than the average life expectancy, and there was an incredibly large amount of workers for each beneficiary. Essentially, very few people actually received benefits. Social Security is not meant to reward an entire generation; if it were, the age to receive benefits would have been much lower at implementation. “Without the older generation there would be no society today” This is, of course, true, but it’s time to pass on the torch. There is something to be said for making life easier for one’s posterity. Without some sacrifice from both seniors and workers, the younger generation will continue to become worse off. As stated earlier, by 2040, the worker beneficiary ratio is expected to be at 2.1 workers per beneficiary. It is not reasonable to expect the average member of the younger generation to pay for half of each beneficiary’s income. The worker/beneficiary ratio needs to improve, and the best way to do this is by keeping the younger generation working longer and older generation receiving benefits for less time. This debate is not about providing the best possible care for seniors. If it were, then reducing benefits wouldn’t even be discussed. This debate is about the betterment of America as a whole. Arbitrary My rebuttal for this statement can be summed up with a quote from my opponent. “most people retire when they judge that they are no longer able to work, and when not working is financially possible. ” Essentially, it is people’s expectations about the age that they can get away with retiring that keeps them demanding to retire at 65. Simply put, their expectations should not be that they could retire before it is beneficial to society to retire. People’s expectations need to be changed for retirement at 70, as long as they are capable of working until then. It is unreasonable for the age of eligibility for Social Security to be 65 because it leaves the younger generations, which make up the majority of America, in an unreasonable situation where each worker has to pay for half of a beneficiary’s income and it creates a financially impossible to uphold entitlement program that will have to be shut down before the younger generations (who were paying into the program) can even receive benefits. How to pay for it “It’s true that rising to this challenge will require sacrifice. ” I have already shown the sacrifices made by both sides, future beneficiaries and workers, to be overall beneficial. “It’s not like that debt will be bad debt. ” My opponent basically concedes here that, as it currently is, Social Security will end up creating massive debt. This is a debt that will continue to be passed down to the younger generations, which will result in even higher taxes for the younger generations and worse worker/beneficiary ratios. Though there is some value to be found, the overall negatives outweigh that value. “As the present smaller generation grows up, this won’t be an issue. ” This will continue being an issue. As stated in the previous round, the fertility rate in America is decreasing, so the population will continue to grow older, with the worker/beneficiary ratio worsening, the debt increasing as more people are receiving more benefits for longer, and the debt will just be passed on to the next generation, and the next one after that. The age of eligibility should be raised. Conclusion It serves an overall positive to increase the age of eligibility for Social Security. Overall benefits will be reduced, but that means that the working generations, where the majority of the American population lies, won’t need to pay as much taxes to support an increasingly dismal worker/beneficiary ratio and Social Security will be able to continue so people will continue to be able to expect benefits when they reach the age of eligibility. Seniors who are incapable of work can still receive benefits, experienced workers will continue to be used, and all that needs to really be changed is people’s expectation of when they can get away with retiring. Thank you Larz, I look forward to your response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ssa.gov... 2. . http://www.ssa.gov... (BB. P. L. 98-21, The Social Security Amendments of 1983, section 1) 3. . http://www.justfacts.com...