Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out.

My opponent did not submit an argument last round so therefore I shall start. Social Security is a "Ponzi" scheme [1]. The money that gets automatically deducted from people's paychecks each month does not go into a savings fund somewhere, it goes into the pockets of a current retiree. So when someone who pays into the system for 40+ years reaches the age of retirement, that person will have $0 waiting for them in savings in their social security fund. What happens is when the next younger generation pays into the system, the new retiree receives what the new young person pays into the system. It is essentially an "intergenerational transfer of wealth". Why is this a problem? Although this system of robbing peter to pay paul may have worked in the '30s and '40s under FDR's New Deal, today it is unsustainable. Why? Because due to inflation and the rapidly growing retiree population and the fact that people are living longer than ever before, it is becoming unsustainable. In 2010, there was a negative cash flow of $74 Billion into the fund and this deficit continues to grow each year. By 2034, the reserves of the program will be depleted. [2] We are essentially robbing 1 peter to pay 2 pauls. I would also like to add that the money Americans give to the government over their 40+ year careers will grow to be much more if they invest it in a 401 (K) or an IRA and let it grow at the market rate. Let's say for argument's sake that wages, prices, inflation etc... remains static for the following scenario. The median wage in the US, according to the census is $50,500 a year [3]. Let's say someone earns that wage for 40 years. That means each month the Social Security department will deduct about $260.92 a month from that person's paycheck [4]. If we assume that wage remains static for 40 years that person would pay $125,241.60 into the system ($260.92 x 12 months x 40 years = $125,241.60). The average Social Security benefit is $1,180.80 per month [5]. The average lifespan in the US is about 79 years [6]. That means if the person in question retires at 65 years old and dies at 79 years old they will collect 14 years of benefits which would amount to $198,374.4 ($1,180.80 x 12 months x 14 years = $198,374.4). Since the person got out more than they put in they received a decent return on their investment into the social security fund. Let's say, however, this person, instead of being forced to pay $260.92 into the Social Security fund each month, invested it in a retirement account such as a 401 (k) or an IRA which grew on average at 7% a year [7]. After doing this for 40 years, that retirement account will be worth $625,080 [8]. This amount is significantly more than the ~$200k the retiree would have gotten out of the social security administration during retirement. Not only that, it is the retiree's actual money. It is not simply an act of transferring wealth from one age group to another. It is a real tangible asset. Let's say unfortunately, the retiree didn't live until 79 years old and lived until he got 70 years old. The money left over in the retirement account can then be passed down to a spouse or children or even a charity if the person desires where as with social security, you can't put in your will that you want someone else to receive your benefits. So the point I am trying to make is the person in this scenario did not have the choice to take his own money and put it into a retirement account. $260.92 is forcefully taken out of his paycheck and put into a fund which will yield less than if he were to put it in a standard retirement account and invest it and let it grow at the market rate. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.pewresearch.org... [3] http://www.mybudget360.com... [4] http://www.paycheckcity.com... [5] http://money.usnews.com... [6] http://www.usatoday.com... [7] http://www.moneyunder30.com... [8] http://investor.gov...