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

Thank you Larztheloser for your response. “If you just got fired from your job for being grossly incompetent, that does not prove you have a disability.” The point that I had been responding to was Con’s point about excessively stiff joints or memory loss, not incompetence. This would count as a disability if it prevented the senior from working. That being said, if a senior truly didn’t see themselves as fit to work by his or her own definition, that person could receive 70% benefits. If large amounts of people chose to do this rather than waiting until they turned 70 to retire, raising the age of eligibility would still have the desired effect, which is to reduce the overall benefits distributed, and therefore improve the worker/beneficiary ratio. My model wouldn’t be what is best for old people if the age were raised immediately. However, it would be best for America as a whole, including future retirees, if it was raised somewhat gradually, so workers would have the time to adjust their retirement plans. “A compassionate society… but in terms of quality of life… showing some compassion to the elderly is absolutely superior If there were less people receiving benefits, or more people receiving partial benefits rather than full benefits, more people would be in the workforce paying significantly less taxes. Right now, there are about 161,000,000 covered workers (1) and 22,349,000 social security beneficiaries over 70 (2). This means that if the age of eligibility were raised to 70, the worker/beneficiary ratio would be about 7.2 workers per beneficiary (5). With this amazing improvement in the ratio, workers would be paying hundreds of dollars less in taxes. Though the worker/beneficiary ratio will likely worsen by 2040 slightly, we are looking at each person paying a little less than a sixth of a senior’s income, rather than each couple supporting a senior, as the 2.1 number would suggest. This is forcing people to be more strongly compassionate to others when they still need to support their own families. Even though people won’t start receiving benefits until they are older, their overall quality of life will improve as less money is taken out of their payroll and they will be able to afford to save more and spend more on their own. Incentive to retire My opponent’s point about not being a reason to hire somebody is not lost on me. However, it seems to be based on the faulty presumption that as the size of the workforce goes up, unemployment will increase. This is not true, because even though the population is increasing, unemployment is on a downward trend (3), so it is faulty to presume that an increase in worker age would leave older or younger people dramatically more unemployed than they currently are. In fact, it is more probable to assume that the unemployment will still decrease over time, but the younger people will still have a higher unemployment relative to the older people. “I might add that child labour…would be no more morally abhorrent than what pro is proposing.” It has already been established that people retire at age 65 because they expect that they will be able to, not because they are incapable of work. I have also shown that from a moral and practical standpoint, it serves a net benefit to the people to be able to not pay as much into Social Security. However, child labor has a whole slew of problems associated with it that don’t even have to do with Social Security. This is time that the children should be spending educating themselves, establishing relationships that will last them a lifetime, not ruining their bodies through work, and many more that I don’t have the space to go into. It would absolutely be more morally abhorrent to employ 10-year-olds. That being said, when you look at the unemployment rates by age, it is clear that very few children would even be employed in the first place, so it wouldn’t be a more efficient way to increase the labor pool and pay for the older generation. Retirement is Compensation “Pro is advocating state-sponsored ageism.” Not at all. People aren’t considered disabled because they are old, but would be considered disabled if they were incapable of working, as I said when I responded to your point about joints and memory loss. I never said that old people are disabled, but that if they didn’t fall under disability insurance, they could opt for the more all-encompassing early benefits. Arbitrary Like I said in the previous round, people largely retire when they do because they expect that they can. As the population is aging, people need to change their expectations, as it is better for America and its future for the age of eligibility to be increased. How to pay for it “It’s a debt with an inbuilt mechanism for paying it back.” The inbuilt mechanism that my opponent cites is the Social Security trust fund, which is, as I have previously shown, expected to be entirely exhausted by 2033. As the costs of the program are starting to outweigh the payroll tax income, this situation cannot be presumed to be improving. I would like to add that I don’t understand why Con is focusing so heavily on my claims about disability insurance, which were in direct response to his claims about inability to work. What is more important here is that the beneficiaries could receive 70% benefits early, which still accomplishes the goal of decreasing overall benefits to something more manageable. “The fertility rate… nor is it getting worse.” While it is true that it can be assumed that things won’t be getting worse after around 2040, where the worker/beneficiary ratio seems to become relatively stable at 2.1/1, this is not a ratio we should be content with. One working husband and wife couple should not be paying for a person’s entire income. Whether or not New Zealand has a worse ratio is irrelevant. America is in a tough time now, and the times will continue to be tough if we don’t raise the age of eligibility. “Things become more affordable when a larger population dies because they leave behind estates.” This is not a change to the current system, and is therefore not improving or worsening the situation. “Con is yet to justify why, exactly, 2 workers per beneficiary is ‘financially impossible to uphold.” I justified that when I showed that in 2033, the trust fund will be exhausted and a dramatic 25% decrease in benefits paid out would be imminent (4), which would be drastically worse than the way of reducing benefits that I’ve suggested. I also justified when I said that each person will be paying for half of a person’s entire income by 2040, which is entirely unreasonable. After 2033, Social Security will either need to be abolished, to drastically reduce benefits, or to run at a huge deficit, which will mean an even larger burden on the working population. Conclusion Increasing the age of eligibility to 70 would improve the worker/beneficiary ratio to around 7.2/1, would decrease the tax burden on the working population, would reduce the deficit, and would make Social Security financially manageable to continue. This is not just saving the working population a few cents on their taxes. This translates to hundreds of dollars each month saved by the working population. The increase in real life expectancy can't be ignored, because more people are beneficiaries now, and for about 40% longer, as shown in the background information. We can’t ignore the numbers because people are trying to support their own families, not half the income of others. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you for a great debate. Also, I apologize for the awkward spacing. I think it might be a DDO bug from copying and pasting from a word document. 1. http://www.ssa.gov... 2. http://www.ssa.gov... 3. http://data.bls.gov... 4. http://www.nytimes.com.... security.html?_r=0 5. 161,000,000/22,349,000= about 7.2/1