Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security

To clarify the situation, both Pro and I have agreed that we will roll forward with the counter plan I've presented as my advocacy. I will stick to it. The rule in R1 that I could present no counter plans is therefore no longer in effect, and I do apologize for the confusion on this issue. Pro's case: C1: The Role of Government Pro never supports his P1. He hasn't explained why governments should not enforce imperfect duties, only why they must enforce perfect duties. In fact, his own quote belies the fault in his claim, stating that imperfect duties "come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent... aid and assist others." This means that governments must engage in SOME imperfect duties like SS. Pro claims that SS is somehow infringing on some unknown governmental duty, and that this somehow undermines humanity (not sure what that means). He doesn't explain why private actors are inherently better, and none of his sources support that view. Health and debt are public issues, especially with regards to infectious diseases and their effects on the overall economy.[20] Pro seems to be arguing that any loss of freedom cannot be justified, but becoming a ward of the state is a bigger loss of freedom. This is also an argument against all taxation, which would defund the entire government and stop enforcement of perfect duties. I never argued that governments create rights. SS is beneficial, and governments should protect their citizens after a long life of working and contributing to society. That's reason enough to support its continued existence. Lastly, Pro brings up distributive justice. He mainly just name drops, citing Nozick and Toqueville, but fails to explain their views on SS, why anyone else should share those views, or why enforcing positive rights is harmful. He gives no reason why SS prevents individuals from being "self-entrapenurial." Since they can use all of the money they get from SS and any money they have left over from earnings to invest, Pro isn't providing any clear harm. He mentions the Libertarian Principle, but only asserts its claims. He doesn't show how he's ensuring that people will work harder or work towards the betterment of society. Placing the elderly in a situation where they will likely become wards of the state and huge burdens on their families ensures that all of these purported benefits are turned against him. C2: SS flaws This contention attacks the current system, and is therefore not responsive to my case. However, the status quo is still better than Pro's case. All he's shown is that by 2034, SS will no longer fully pay for itself. That's not an insurmountable problem, and Pro's system is the only one that ends SS benefits without recourse. C3: Privatization "solves" Pro talks about the right to choose (while denying SS as an option) without impacting choice. He showcases political efforts towards privatization, again sans impact. He points to Texas and Florida as examples, but a) his source [12] doesn't support his numbers or even reference the states, b) they only reduced the size of SS, which is actually another alternative to his case. Pro cites Martin Feldstein, whose views on this issue have been widely debunked.[21] Even Arnold Kling, an economist who supports privatization, states that his "'stock market scenario' is bogus... [it] assumes that the stock prices will grow faster than the economy forever. This violates Stein's Law, which says that anything that can't go on forever, stops... real GDP growth will be closer to 3 percent than 5.5 percent." That return still fails to beat inflation. I'll address the remainder of this on my case. My case: C1: Harming Retirees Pro drops that professional money managers, by and large, will not even make the 3% market index I cited above, and gives no reason why anyone is likely to do better, let alone do well enough to beat out the wage indexing of SS payouts (which consistently exceeds inflation). He drops that investment through brokerage firms, one of the few safer places to do so, automatically reduces their returns. He drops that any market downturn will bankrupt retirees. Pro points to IRAs and 401K plans alternative investments. However, both of these are terrible options. When the economy crashed between 2007 and 2008, IRAs and 401k plans lost 47% of their value, showcasing a tremendous risk. "Retirement experts find that these plans have numerous shortcomings, including high operation costs and low investment returns. The biggest problem with defined contribution plans is that alone they do not provide retirees with guaranteed retirement income."[22] Pro presents a fantasy scenario where businesses "rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens". He doesn't support this, and it's incredibly unlikely, given that private medical providers have exploited such opportunities to bilk seniors out of money.[23, 24] Pro's "generic math" is absurd. His first source here shows that the stock market improved over the last century, but unless Pro can show that this trend will continue (no such luck [25]), this means nothing going forward. Moreover, the upward trend isn't consistent. From his own source: "Stock returns are wild and unpredictable. Since 1927, the S&P 500 stock index has gained 10.4% a year on average. But in any given year it could be up 29.9% or down 9.0% or somewhere in between."[26] Many investments will fail and these seniors will be without any funds whatsoever. The harms to them and their families outweigh some people getting rich. Pro's dividends source actually shows them averaging at 1.87% as of 2014. That number is highly taxed. Not all stocks pay dividends, but those that do aren't actually better investments, as: dividends are highly taxed, they don't hold up in bad markets, dividend-paying stocks generally underperform the market, they sacrifice diversification, and are unreliable as a source of future income.[27, 28] Pro's source on inflation is correct, but that's still more than the 3% average I cited. C2: Pro admits his case is entirely theoretical, which makes it that much harder for him to prove he has any solvency. Pro ignores all my sources and warrants on Chile, asserting that the problem is the public option. However, a) he doesn't explain how the public option is harmful, b) he fails to note that 90% of people switched to the private system (from his own source), c) the transition costs, which Pro dropped, still apply to Pro's case, and d) Pi"era, the economist Pro cites, has been widely criticized by both World Bank, which found that fees and costs negate much of the benefits and returns are lower than he claims, and the Chilean government itself, which estimates "that as many as half of all workers" will not even be able to receive a minimum pension after paying into their account for 30 years, making them reliant on subsidies. "More than 17 percent of Chile's retirees now continue working because they can't afford to live on their pensions... and another 7 percent want to work, but can't find jobs."[29] Pro drops the UK example, and thus the link to his case is solid. As for Galveston, Pro's not implementing the Alternate Plan. He's not garnering those benefits. He dropped that many seniors in these 3 Texas counties become wards of the state, a harm that applies to his case. C3: Counter Plan On the tax cap, Pro's chart isn't applicable, since it only focuses on numbers of people rather than amounts of tax money. His [11] doesn't explain the effect of this change within the context of what SS requires to be solvent. By contrast, my [18] from U.S. News and World Report and [19] from the CBO both discuss the correct subject in the correct context, which means voters should buy my 74% estimate from my [18], and the decade by decade analysis on page 47 of my [19]. On the tax increase, Pro doesn't explain why 9% is the magic number at which SS is made solvent. Pro drops both of my sources, which show that a 0.5% (lower than mine) rise as sufficient to cover 26% of the SS shortfall, so that level of solvency is certain. Pro claims that poor women will somehow "have negative earnings" despite being taxed only 0.7% more of them. He gives no warrants for this, nor does his source explain. The reality is that women are likely to do far worse under privatization, since they rely more on SS and they cannot outlive these benefits, among other reasons.[30] Pro's states "people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan". His source for this doesn't discuss SS at all, he doesn't explain where he got his numbers from, and he doesn't show the calculation. He continues on this path with arguments that somehow turn an increase of much less than 6.9% (because most of that's already applied to a good portion of their income) into a 12% increase on the rich, though he doesn't explain how this happens or how it's harmful. I agree that the government uses the money from SS for other things " that was part of my argument. It's extremely important towards keeping other programs (like the military) afloat. Pro doesn't say why this is bad. As for perception, Pro ignores clear support for both my proposals, which shows that both the outcomes and the means to achieve them are likely to improve public opinion of SS. Pro is wrong that SS funds disappear if you die. Survivors insurance uses your SS benefits to protect your family after death.[31] Pro's is just not responsive to any of my explanation of the solvency of my counter plan. He barely introduces any doubt, and what doubt he does introduce is rarely supported. Back over to Pro. 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://cnn.it... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://cnb.cx... 25. http://cnb.cx... 26. http://usat.ly... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://bit.ly... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://1.usa.gov...