Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished

And again, my apologies for the delay in my response, Advocate123. Long week. ". .. Social Security has had the opposite effect from what its well-intentioned sponsors wanted it to have because it must be funded with the payroll tax or go bankrupt. " -I cannot disagree that there are problems in the system of Social Security, not the least of which is the expected shortfall in benefits that will begin in about a decade or so, due to the retirement of the "baby boomer" generation. It is not quite the "either/or" scenario that my opponent presents, though: "Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire. The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G. D. P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. " ( . http://www.pkarchive.org... ) "Consequently, abolishing Social Security would lead to much more desirable results. " -As part of your argument is that Social Security hurts the poor and elderly, I find this statement rather mystifying. Simply abolishing the entire spectrum of Social Security programs would be much more harmful to the poor and elderly, and to the middle and upper classes as well, as approximately 48.4 million people currently receive benefits from the system in one way or another. ( . http://price.house.gov... ) Abolition is good idea if one is looking for a Class War a la the French Revolution. I must also ask the question, More desirable results for whom? Certainly not for those currently receiving benefits from the program, as many would be left destitute. "After Washington receives the money, checks are printed out and distributed directly to retired people. Contrary to popular belief, none of the money is saved in an account for the individual. " -Who believed this? My opponent's primary contention seems to be with the payroll tax in particular. While much of what Advocate123 wrote in his Round 1 is correct, a couple of his statements strike me as especially specious: -"The common liberal myth is that workers only pay 6.2% for payroll taxes. That is not true. By forcing an employer to pay 6.2% as well, the employee bears the burden for both taxes. " I have never heard of this myth. The facts are available from both the government and independent sources: ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Your conclusion that the employee bears the burden for all of the tax is also faulty, I believe - see below points. -"The reason why the employee pays for both taxes is because the employer could care less whether the 6.2% went to the government or the employee, but it needs to get paid no matter what. " I would argue that the employer would rather not pay out the extra 6.2% period, regardless of who it goes to. -"Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government. " Highly unlikely. -"Overall, the employees always lose because the money would go to the employee in some form or another if the employer were not required to pay the tax. " Any evidence to back up this statement? "Eventually, when people give all of their earned money away to the government, and have none for themselves, future poverty will be created in this Country. " -People do not give *all* of their earned money to the government. Future poverty is created because the benefits paid out are simply not enough for most families or individuals to escape from poverty, other things being equal. "It is just a never-ending cycle, and has not shown to benefit the poor; it has made them dependent on Government. " -To whatever degree the current program may or may not benefit the poor, abolition would be much worse, as they would have no benefits. ". .. [I]t has made them dependent on Government. " -A large part of the recipients of benefits would be dependent in any case: the elderly and infirmed, the disabled, children, etc. as they have no other means for income or support. It as due to civic responsibility that the whole cares for these less-fortunate individuals, via the government. As for abolition, this is simply not a practical idea. As much as Social Security hurts anyone now (which you have not actually argued - you argued that the payroll tax harms, not SS in itself), the abolition would hurt them much more. But I cannot argue that the system does not need an overhaul of some sort. I argue that, in addition to the option of various kinds of privatization (which are riddled with problems in-and-of themselves), there is another way to not abolish Social Security and at the same time hurt neither the poor or the elderly: the payroll tax could simply be made *much* more progressive. The working poor and the middle class would pay much less of their earnings, which many need all of in order to simply have the basic necessities of modern life, and the upper class and wealthy middle class would simply pay much more of theirs. With a radically progressive tax similar to what I have described, the program would cease to hurt the poor or elderly in any way, therefore it should not be abolished. It would probably provide a surplus to the program.