Social Security

Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting his arguments. This is the rebuttal round, and I will give them now. Rebuttals My opponent begins by listing the benefits of Social Security. The first benefit he lists is not actually a benefit, just a difference in payments from when you are 62 compared to when you are 70. The second benefit expands on this. The third benefit is that “[i]f you make it for 10 years, you can collect a Social Security benefit based on up to half of your ex's earnings or on the basis of your own earnings -- whichever is higher.” This is indeed a benefit. But a benefit does not mean anything when it will cease to exist by 2036. As I stated in my round 2 arguments, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, and the federal funds will run out. When this happens, everyone receiving benefits will no longer be receiving them because there will not be enough to give. My opponent’s fourth benefit is that “a widow can begin drawing a survivors benefit on her late husband's Social Security when she is as young as 60, but only at a reduced rate. Then she can choose to leave her own Social Security alone, allowing it to grow in value until her full retirement age -- or even age 70.” Again, this is a benefit that will cease to exist when the fund runs out. Furthermore, there are solutions that help people save for retirement other than Social Security, such as s savings account, private pension plans, etc. One can also invest in other things, like stocks or bonds. Moving on, my opponent seems to be refuting a point I made, though it was the round specifically for arguments and not rebuttals. Be that as it may, I will refute his points. My opponent quotes a section of an NPR interview that talks about how “pension plans could be insolvent in 10 years.” Allow me to elaborate the truths and falsehoods of this. A private pension is a system in which individuals contribute part of their earnings, usually into saving schemes or mutual funds. Upon retirement, these pension plans will pay this money back to them each month, along with any interest it has accumulated. The NPR interview says that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation may be insolvent, not pension plans themselves. You see, State Pensions are backed by tax dollars that may not always be there. Private pension plans are backed by cash and assets that will always exist (excluding inflationary problems and unless said asset is a stock or a bond that loses its value). What Jim Zarroli is saying is that the PBGC may not always have the money to make sure “that workers are going to get the pension benefits they're promised if, you know, if, for instance, their company goes bankrupt.” The problem with a plan being insolvent in 10 years is, in fact, the exact same issue with Social Security. As I stated in round 2, “In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover the expenditures required to pay for Social Security. … The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action.” Social Security will cease to exist eventually as well, while this problem does not exist in private pensions. Conclusion In conclusion, I believe I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to his rebuttals.