We shall abolish Social Security and replace it with R.E.I.A.G

The Pro clarified the meaning behind the opening statement about retirement age, however I still have a few concerns about this matter. " For a good 42 years, we will need Social security for those that never got enrolled in the Government investment accounts, but after those 42 years, audios Social Security."So this plan is supposed to eventually phase out socal security, not replace it all together. Doesnt that mean that for 40+ years taxpayers will have to fund both social security and this plan? You also say that after 42 years social security will end, but this isnt true because you yourself said that "I never said we must abolish Social Security for those that need it", yet those who would not qualify for this scheme of yours who would have to buy into social security will be around for well over 42 years.... A 20 year old would not qualify for the Pro's plan since he is too old, so he would have to rely on Social security, but in 42 years that same person will only be 62 at a time where the life expectancy would be well over 80. Doesnt this mean that Social security would still have to be around for more than 50 years in addition to this new system?" The number of 18 year olds in the U.S. does indeed fluctuate from year to year, but not drastically"Baby boom generation came at the close of WWII where the number of births skyrocketed. Those baby boomers hit 18 around the 1970's and the number of 18 year olds was far greater than any other time. http://upload.wikimedia.org...This graph shows the huge spike in births in the US following WWII, and that spike would shift through the age groups until finally, when that bulge started hitting 18, the number of 18 year olds in the country was massive to the time just 20 years earlier. The point is that populations do fluctuate, sometimes immensely, and the Pro simply ignores the potential this could have on the system. " 54 Billion dollars will buy thousands of stocks and therefore diversify the Government investment account portfolio"Yeah but what if the government just pours that money into companies they like such as big oil companies or their own treasury bonds, who is going to make them invest in everything to "diversify their portfolio"? Which stocks would be chosen because investing 200 million dollars in a bankrupt solar panel company instead of 500 isnt much better. Does the government have to blindly invest in everything or can they actually pick which ones are safe bets? Also what happens if the companies the government pours money into suddenly closes? We have many ner fortune 500 companies than we did 30 years ago meaning that if we invest a crapload of money in companies now, they might not be around 40 years later to pay us back...."the Government investment accounts are infallible."Unless everything goes to hell, correct?" We are not adding 54 billion dollars to the stock market; we are buying 54 billion dollars of the stock market that is already there"Which literally means adding billions to the stock market....."And as for wealth distribution gap, again I have already shown how the money will NOT go away after 13 years"No you havent, you dropped this point completely. "Also, this wealth has to be coming from somewhere..... So the only place that the wealth can come from is the wealthy."And how exactly do you plan on taxing the wealthy to fund this multi billion dollar program without allowing them to work through a loophole like they do every time the government tries to make them pay for something?Forfeited arguments - 1 - The Pro has forfeited the meaning behind "everybody must be able to enroll" - 2 - The Pro has forfeited that this system does not take into account immigration and people who come to this country after they are 18 years old - 3 - The Pro has forfeited who exactly will control where all this money goes and how it is invested and managed - 4 - The Pro forfeits that age groups arent proportional in the 16 to 24 category and that there may be more 18 years olds than the system expected - 5 - The Pro forfeits that these accounts would be emptied in 13 years. 711,000 total / 54,000 annually = 13.17 years before the accounts are emptied and seniors are left on their own. - 6 - The Pro forfeits that due to the ever increasing life expectancy some people may go years even decades without any sort of income with this new system in place. - 7 - The Pro forfeits that his system not only depends on stock fluctuations, but also from % of inflation and the dividend yield"I have refuted every single one of con’s arguments and shown the various flaws in them as well"You ignored half of them....