Question: Should social security be privatized?

Privatising social security would improve economic growth Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."[1]  As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.”[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?

Privatising social security will harm retirees As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.”[1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls”[2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average. The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks.[3] The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today.[4] If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection.  Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues.  Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.[5] It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.””[6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized. [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19 [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf

Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."[1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society. Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010.[2]  Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues.[3] It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization. [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/ [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf

Social security should be privatized. Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?

Social security should be privatized. Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.

Privatizing social security Privatizing social security enables investment of savings

Privatizing social security Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized This round I shall work on my Case and with the character restriction I will appoligies if I run out of room and have to cut a few things shortContention 1: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [1] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [2] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [3] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [4] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 2: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [5] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, "someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit." This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [6]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by "reaching into the cookie jar" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [7] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon "Aaaaand it's Gone." [8]The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control.You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000." [11] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [12] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [13]Sources1. ( Social Security Administration, "Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries," ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://www.ncpa.org...) 4. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Inflation Calculator," bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Pass

Privatizing social security helps the poor. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs."

Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings. An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade.[1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers."[2] The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions.[3] Contrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system. Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero.[4] While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.[5] [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf

The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Social Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under.[1] As a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent.[2] Social Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes.[3] In many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.”[4] Faced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s.[5] [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [3] San Diego Union Tribune. "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html [4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html; [5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf

Social security should be privatized. I'm glad we at least agree that social security has serious issues. It's always good to have common ground upon which to debate. I disagree that privatization has a shaky track record. It is government programs such as social security that have a shaky track record. Our entire economy is based on the merits of private enterprise, and it has worked for us thus far. Despite the relative youth of this country, we have managed to surpass all other nations in terms of economic productivity and wide-spread prosperity. I think it is rather inconsistent to say that, whereas privatization has proven successful in virtually every other area of our economy, that it would not be successful in providing retirement benefits for seniors. "[In] Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work." I have no doubt that this is the case. However, I don't see that our system is much better. According to one website (which I have cited below due to the length of the URL) one third of U.S. retirees are forced to go back to work shortly after "retiring," despite the 500 billion dollars collected in payrol taxes every year. At least Chile is getting its money's worth. "Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution." I don't see how savings rates puts us into a higher risk bracket. Savings accounts are the second lowest risk investment type, preceeded only by cash itself. There would be virtually no risk involved. The cost of privatization is irrelevant. That cost will only grow the longer we wait to fix this problem. Our choice is not between privatization and non-privatization, it is between privatization now, which MAY cost 4.9 trillion (depending on how you go about it), or privatization later, after the system has collapsed and elderly people are left without an income. You wouldn't be replacing one bloated bureaucracy with another, you'd be eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and replacing it with a private system whose very survival depends on its ability to be efficient! It doesn't cost any more for a mutual fund manager to handle two billion dollars than it does to manage two million dollars. The additional administrative costs would arise with distribution of benefits. Since businesses, unlike the government, are trying to make money, they are forced to do things in the most efficient way possible. Because of this, the cost of distribution would be significantly less than under a government run system. Moreover, we would be introducing a powerful factor into retirement benefits: compound interest. If we were allowed to invest our own money for our own retirment, instead of pay for someone else's retirement by sending that money to the government, more people would retire in a much better financial situation than currently. If I were allowed to put 2,000 dollars per year into decent mutual fund (one that earns 10% interest after adjusting for administrative costs and inflation, which is not unrealistic) beginning at age 24 until I retire at sixty-five, I would end up with one million dollars, only $80,000 of which I had actually put in to the account! That constitutes a %1250 return on my investment. Contrast that with our current system in which you recieve an estimated 1.23% rate of return for two income households. If social security is nothing more than the crappy end of a larger investment portfolio, why have it at all? Yes, there would still be administrative costs for a private system, but at least we'd be getting something in return. Why send $200 dollars to the government every paycheck where it will acrue no interest when you could invest it and get at as much as 10% interest? In light of this, social security is indeed a joke. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so completely wasteful. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HGSGDdY0zq0J:www.ci.walla-walla.wa.us/vertical/Sites/%257B5C31B82F-5E63-4200-9CF4-237E5245E279%257D/uploads/%257B528FE4F0-356F-4DB6-A60E-6258691ACD6B%257D.DOC http://www.heritage.org...

Social security should be privatized. As Daniel Webster once said, "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.

privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks. Privatization would represent a windfall for Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts.

Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down."

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Rules: No kritiks or semanticsBoP sharedContention: Privatization of Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) would be disastrous due to risk, the need to raise taxes and its contribution to the national debt.http://www.youtube.com...Risk: Looking at past recessions, stock market crashes and changing monetary policy in just the last 30 years proves there’s risk involved in changing Social Security RIB to a Private Plan (PP). A person can lose initial investment as well as gains in the markets. The early 1980’s recession was due to monetary policy [1]. In August 1987 markets began to slide, by Oct. 19th, Black Monday, the market took a 22.5% loss in one day; measured total fall of 36.7% [2]. In 1990-92 there was the S&L crisis with a Fed bail out [3]. The DOT com bubble burst of the 90’s is another example [4, 5]. Lastly, the more recent 2008 housing and financial crash where the stock market fell 2400 points in a week [6]. At each occurrence those with mature investments ready to retire took a big hit. Waves of unemployment resulted with decreased or halted contributions, and sometimes liquidation of retirement assets was enacted to stay afloat. In the last crash, those within 10 years, or broaching retirement loss 20% of their retirement investment with little or no time to recoup losses. Either way, that money is lost never to return; recoup means to get to a previously held level [7]. If you retire during an economic down turn you may not have sufficient funds to last. The risk defeats the purpose of the social security safety net. Under Funding Current Insurance Liabilities: Shifting funds to individual accounts, a PP, would take away funds from the current millions of spouses, dependent children of the deceased, as well as the disabled [8]. Furthermore, current influx of funds supports the now retired. How would the government fund current RIB payments of the near future and presently retired? A PP would only apply to those coming into the work force anew. All those currently working and contributing to the traditional RIB would be a part of the old system for decades to come. The Social Security RIB is estimated to take 75 years for complete solvency if privatization is enacted [14]. No one has a crystal ball on the changing tide of the economy, the government or the will of the people over that span of time. For a PP to be implemented the Gov would need to decrease current payouts and borrow to cover current liabilities with the diversion of taxes going to individual accounts [17], also raise payroll taxes [11]. Currently a portion, approximately 1 out of 5 SS dollars, goes into the SS Trust Fund to pay future benefits [9]. If current money goes into individual accounts contributions to the Trust Fund will cease and its present balance will be depleted far more quickly that the expected 2058 [10, 15]. A.) Net Loss: To fund current and near future payments government borrowing and cut in services will not be enough. A raise in SS taxes would be needed. Monies will go into PPs for the future and the tax increase will support the current pool as well as subsidize low income workers contributing to PPs to ensure minimum retirement income [14 p.27]. Privatization will have the payer contributing to both ends rather than the current pay-as-you formula. The increase in tax against balance in private accounts could produce a negative gain effect [13]. Government borrowing for transition cost, which is estimated to be 10 trillion, will contribute greatly to the already ballooning national debt [14 p.29]. Various proposals have been made on how privatization would be structured, either by a centralized government entity or open market competition. I’ll examine the lesser of two evils in this round.Issues with Centralized Privatization: A centralized government plan would certainly decrease some of the administrative and broker’s fee associated in typical investment market purchases, but who will decide what the options for privatized accounts will be? Financial institutions will have political influence in Washington [15, 16]. Considering the S&L debacle of the early 90’s, the financial industry’s complicity in the 2008 crash and following bail out at tax payer expense, they can’t be trusted to act in our best interest. The lure of all working Americans contributing to private accounts where profits that can be made is too tempting. To say a reoccurrence of a stock market or financial institution crash and bail out will not occur again is a fallacy; history has bore this out [14]. Not only will we, the tax payer, be bailing out the financial sector again, loose all or most of what is in our PPs but, also have to pay to replenish the system for it to continue.1. 1. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu...2. 2. http://www.stockpickssystem.com...3. 3. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu....4. 4. http://www.investors.com...5. 5. http://www.thebubblebubble.com...6. 6. http://money.usnews.com...7. 7. https://www.ebri.org...8. 8. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com...9. 9. https://en.wikipedia.org...10. 10. http://www.npr.org...11. 11. http://www.nytimes.com...12. 12. http://www.ncpssm.org...13. 13. http://www.fedsmith.com...14. 14. http://www.actuary.org...15. 15. http://business.time.com...16. 16. http://www.ourfuture.org... 17. 17. http://www.brookings.edu...

Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.

privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

Privatizing social security Social security is in crisis

The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.[1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea.[2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check. Even more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts.[3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.' The alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits.[4] [1] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [3] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security To clearify as my opponent has asked, Priviatization shall be the ending of Federal Control in Social Security and a phase out to private control in a 10 year peroid. People with money curently in federal funds shall have this transfered to the compan the client chooes. My opponent is defending the Status Quo, Social Security as it is in this current moment.Contention 1: The Role of the GovernmentP1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Social Security does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce Social Security.""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Social Secutiry Program is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that the Social Security Program is not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter "Sir" as if he was a knight. Contention 2: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [8] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [9] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [10] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [11] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 3: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [12] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, "someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit." This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [13]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by "reaching into the cookie jar" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [14] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon "Aaaaand it's Gone." [15]Sources1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.follesdal.net...) 5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)6. (http://ajjulius.net...) 7. (https://mollydodd.wordpress.com...) 8. ( Social Security Administration, "Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries," ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)9. ( Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, "The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds," ssa.gov, July 22, 2015) 10. ( http://www.ncpa.org...) 11. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Inflation Calculator," bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)12. (Michael Clingman et al., "Internal Real Rates of Return under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers," ssa.gov, Dec. 2014) 13. Martin Feldstein, "Private Accounts Can Save Social Security," wsj.com, May 2, 201114. (President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, "Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans," ssa.gov, Dec. 21, 2001) 15. ( Michael Tanner, "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor," cato.org, July 26, 1996)

Privatising social security will harm retirees Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: " Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.”[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html

Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than  the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html

Privatizing social security Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization

Privatizing social security enables investment of savings Alex Schibuola. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. November 16th, 2010: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."

Social security should be privatized. "So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part." Nice try Snoopy, but you missed the point of the quote altogether. Webster's point was action in response to conviction or passion doesn't always yield the desired result (Iraq is a good example of this). Your conviction to destroy social security without much of a real understanding of the impact and cost of such a transition proves Daniel Webster's point. One such example is the concept of disability, one area that social security provides for. In your zeal to abandon this government program, millions of disabled citizens would lose their disability benefits. Now, I'm sure if given the choice to contemplate that fate, you would likely argue for some revision to our efforts to abandon social security to at least make sure these folks didn't lose what is likely a lifeline of income for them. The cost element still hasn't been resolved, though I do realize that you probably care little about this vs. obtaining the result you desire. I do care, as we are already saddling future generations with mountains of debt under this current administration, adding 4-11 trillion more would exacerbate the situation far greater. As for Chile, some of your analysis is correct, but it proves my point when it comes to risk for our citizens. While I agree that the Federal government isn't independent of market performance, it is far more so than the average private account. Most of social security is invested in government bonds, which even today are probably the safest investment that can be made (less so if we continue our debt patterns, which feeds my argument above). I know you've asked for my "fixes" to social security, but I don't think that is germane to the topic, nor do we have time to address it given that this is the last round. However, for the sake of clarification, two of my fixes would lie in raising the cap on current tax levels as well as raising the cap on investment levels so that the trust fund could perform better in periods of economic growth. What you haven't answered that is germane to this topic is how we achieve such a transition. I've highlighted the costs, to which your only answer is they will get worse. That doesn't improve the case for this drastic of a move. The transition to the private system you advocate would be violent, and economically difficult to achieve. I completely agree that people need to change their approach to retirement. Social security should become a much smaller portion of their retirement portfolio, as FDR has originally designed (it was only supposed to be a supplement for poor retirees). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you propose, is far too risky in todays economic climate, especially with the escalating costs of health care for retirees. Privatization may be an option at some point, but today we need to stabilize the patient before we're willing to get rid of it altogether. Too many people would suffer otherwise.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Contention 1: Role of the governmentSince a lot of these arguments mesh it'll seem like I'm jumping around a bit here, so please try and stick with me on this. My opponent starts by stating that this argument could be used against ALL taxation, but yet that statement is entirely flawed as Kant argued that the government must be able to enforce the Kingdom of Ends. This would includes things like fire fighters, police force, military, etc. .. [1] When also cross applied my opponent ignores that this argument is backed up by the Libertarian distributive principle of which shows that only Negative Rights should be enforced. For the sole purpose my opponent doesn't refute the Libertarian principle on face value, but attacks it from a different angle which I'll get to in a minute. We can continue to see that since my opponent has dropped the Negative Rights portion of this we can see that this is one of the key areas of which the government is only able to preform in. Which would eliminate my opponent's stance here concidering that Social Security would be concidered a Postive Right and Not a Negative Right. My opponent also ignores that I brought up the Social Contract and that some freedoms, like my freedom to punish you, should be given up to the federal government to ensure that it is enforced. Does this means that we should give up our "Right to Choose" how we want to spend our money or economics to the government to ensure that we would actually get less then we could've gotten if we had that freedom? The answer is a resonding no. My opponent is confused as to why a private company is better yet once again he ignores my own arguments as I sited Kant in R2 of which he pointed out that the Imperfect Duties should not be carried out by the government. Thus leaves only two possibilities that are it should be illegal or that it should be carried out by a private company. Now my opponent and I can agree that this is important, but we disagree who should do this issue and since it is not a Perfect Duty or a Negative right it should not be enforced by the Federal government. Now I also realize that the Public's health is a key part, but it should not be the government's job to ensure people are heatlhy as it is their choice. That's like the US impossing a fat tax on fast food items to ensure that people eat healthier. (but that's a different debate) I never stated that he was claiming that the federal government was creating rights, but yet it was an argument that I was making to the regards of the federal government creating rights through this program and it should not be preforming this duty due to it being an attrocity upon our freedoms. We can see that rights are natural and not made by the government and my opponent is doing the opposite even with his counter-plan. My opponent claims that I never clairified as to how it prevented people from creating business, but I have stated this several times throughout this debate. I showed that the government is restricting our choices to a government option in the status quo and in my opponent's plan. While under my plan I am opening up the options and we can see that these options will finially allow those into the field and increase our "right to choose. "Contention 2(3): Privatization solvesMy opponent argues that I am not allowing the right to choose by closing off the federal option, but I have already shown how this is restrictive by not allowing competition and how the government option is still horrendous, both under the status quo and my opponent's plan. Indeed stocks will change constantly, but yet my opponent assumes that by doing this alternative that I am purposing that we will run everyone off a cliff like lemmings. This is incorrect as even though stocks fluctuate we can still see that stocks continue to clime upwards and constant shifting of these funds will cause an economic take-off which was dropped by my opponent. [2] Also mind you that people have control of their own personal accounts which is something that doesn't occur under my opponent's plan and also mind you that this isn't the only plan that can occur under privatization since the people have the ability to choose how their money is spent/saved. [3] Continuing my opponent is under selling the market with the 3-5% growth rate while the actual growth of the stock market has been much higher than that around 10-15% Compound Anual Growth. [4]Now onto my opponent's case. Contention 1: Harming RetireesMy opponent's entire argumentation relies on his incorrect statistic of a small growht, but this is completely false due to the fact that I have already shown otherwise making this a great way of investment. Again my opponent spins on the fact of my math by going off of the market flucutations while I have shown tha tin 2013 the markets were up 32% to counter the crash in 2008. Not to mention that 5 out of the last 6 years have well been over 10% meaning that the 10% that I gave was a conservative estimate. [4] My opponent even brings up the new dividend tax, but yet that is almost a non factor as it would 20% at the highest, pending how good of a profit you make from the dividend, so it would chop off only a small amount from the 3% dividend and we would still see a high profit margin for our senior citizens. [5] So from this point alone we can still see a high return regardless of the taxation. Contention 2: PrivatizationMy opponent want to talk solvency, but yet all I have to do here in this debate is prove that my plan is better than my opponents and not to mention that so far I have already shown a great deal of solvency. My opponent claims that I haven't shown how the public option is desasterous, but mind you that I spent an entire option on attacking the public option, status quo, my opponent's plan, and the restriction on the Freedom of Choice. My opponent's claim on this is just purposterous. My opponent claims that I had dropped how we would solve the price, but I have already addressed that by showing a transfer from the Social Security budget and we would not even need to use all of it. Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000. " [6] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [7] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [8]I ran out of characters in the previous round so I was unable to refute these for the most part and cannot due so since it would be unethical to bring up new arguments in my finial round. All I can do is repeat that I have already shown that the UK's crookedness that occured there was on their own terms meaning that it was corruption of the brokers. Not to mention that there are other ways than the stock market as I have brought up before already showing that this does not refute nor link to my case completely. Contention 3: Counter PlanI'm running out of characters so I'll try to address what I can.9% would have to be there in order to include other costs such as Medicare and Medicade. My opponent has also advocated in previous rounds that an increase of 0.7% is needed, but it is greatly impossible to do such a thing as I have shown in my previous round in order to meet the Social Security deadline under the status quo. Anything under that would actually lead to falling short of the status quo which my opponent has already conceded to as being the defunct system. Thus his plan is actually worse than the status quo. [9]My opponent claims that using the money in the Social Security accounts is beneficial for other programs and though that is true Social Security runs out of excess by next year and even if his plan is enforced it will only extend the problems for the long run. We cannot think of a band-aid here we need an actual solution which is something I have provided. We can see that with current interest on US debts ballooning the Social Security funds will be soaked up more and more and before too long we'll wake up without a Social Security program since the government sucked it dry. [10]My opponent uses smoke and mirrors when he stated that you get to keep your Social Security when you die. He forgot to mention that it depends on your earning. What level and amount are these earnings? We might not know since the SSA website doesn't specifiy, but we can see that this harms a great deal of people as I have already shown in previous rounds that many people are excluded from SS like legal immigrants and many poor people are striken when this SS doesn't trickle down to them because they "excede the earnings amount. " I have also shown how my opponent's plan doesn't solve for the Bridge-payment system which is broken showing that within years this plan will be destroyed and broken just like the status quo, but my plan solves compared to my opponent's and we receive better and more benefits under mine. I thank you and please vote Pro. Sources in the comments section.

Social security should be privatized. So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part. You're right, I didn't address your point about Chile very well, so I will do so now. First, Chile's system came out of the failure of their government social security program, so Chile probably isn't the best example to use. I suspect that if the data were available (I've looked but can't find it) you would discover that their new system is working much better than their previous, government-run system. Second, Chile is not the United States. That is to say, the United States has twice the per-capita GDP that Chile does. In a poor economy it is impossible for the vast majority of people to retire. In a more productive economy, more people can afford to retire. It stands to reason, then, that Chile would have a lower retirement rate regardless of what system they use. The fact that theirs is only 8 percentage points lower than ours is actually surprising, considering the relative level of prosperity in our two countries. The only role the government would have in a private system is to essentially force citizens to invest part of their wages into their private retirement account. This might require some auditing, but nothing more, hardly what you'd call a bureaucracy. The cost is irrelevant, as the costs of transitioning will only grow as the problem itself grows. There is no way to "fix" social security because it was a stupid, and wasteful plan to begin with. I would be interested to hear how you think we can fix it, other than to scrap it. The only solutions I have heard are either to raise payroll taxes or decrease benefits, neither of which is truly a solution. The federal government isn't independent of economic performance! The governments income, like all of our incomes, depends on the health of the economy. If the economy crashes as it did in the great depression, the government won't be any better equipped to support the elderly than the elderly themselves. I understand that concern, though. However, I know of no other way, short of investing in gold, to insulate oneself against something like the great depression. If such a thing ever does happen, I suspect providing for retirees will be the least of our concerns. Once again, I don't see any additional risk with private retirement accounts. As a person ages, their investments are gradually shifted to progressively less risky areas. By the time they retire, their life savings are in things like savings accounts, government bonds (which are at least as secure as social security), cash, and gold. At this point, they would be relatively insulated from risk. Those of us still in the workforce would be more likely to go on the welfare dole than retirees at that point! If social security didn't demand so much of our paychecks then I would be okay with having social security as something of a hedge. Unfortunately, it is a huge expense and provides very little benefit. If people had the extra cash to make social security just an overall part of their retirement plan it would be fine, but they don't. It is not as if everyone has a choice between in relying on social security or investing in private accounts on the side. Social security demands the funds that could otherwise be put into private accounts which actually earn interest! Those that CAN afford private investment are often fooled into thinking they don't need to invest for retirement because "social security will take care of me." Once again, you keep saying that welfare can be fixed, but I haven't heard you suggest how. There are only two sides of the social security system, income, and expense. Expenses are gradually beginning to exceed income, and it's only a matter of time before the social security budget is in the red. There are only two possible solutions: decrease benefits or increase taxes. That is the sign of a program doomed to failure. The only solution is to totally change the way we prepare for retirement. Personally, I'm tired of sending my money to the government when it could be earning 10 percent interest somewhere!

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized This round I shall go over my opponent's case first and then move on to my rebuttals. My opponent states that Privatizing RIB would lead to a collapse due to stock market options. There are a few things wrong with this. One of them tend to be that my opponnent has painted the picture of the government would have no safe guards on this. If you look at every government program or new technology, the government is always there to place some sort of safeguard against it. For a key example here is we can see that FDR created the FDIC that would product up to a certain amount in banks [1]. The government would most likely do something of a similiar matter here where the government would require these institutes to create a war chest so they are able to withstand an economic downturn. Under this case, the business would be less inclined to take huge risks and are more likely to take safer ones. Following a recession and during one, investors tend to focus on low growth, low risk stocks. They also tend to look towards smaller businesses which is a huge contribution to why there's a huge growth rate amongst them [2] Another key issue is my opponent is bringing up economic downturns being a huge issue and brings up the Farming Bubble, Dot com, and the Housing bubble. These may be generally bad, but if we tend to look at the recovery stages we can see that this isn't as bad as my opponent's wants us to believe as people will quickly regain any small amount of money they lost. We can see that after the Farming Bubble in the 80's that the US GDP had a 2.9% growth and 1.4% after Dotcom. We can see that overall the economy has huge growth rates after these recessions that truely makes up for any downturns and then some. The economy has also been expierencing fewer recessions and longer growth periods showing that much of this tends to almost be a non-issue. We also have to factor in how the increase in funds into the stocks would expand growth exponentially showing that a recession would be unlikely for a great period of time. First I would like to address the 75 year solvency issue that my opponent has brought up. The source actually talks about several different alternatives and how it would work with said 75 year test. It actually reads," Because Social Security has been operating as a defined benefit plan for over 75 years, it would be impractical to convert it immediately into a pure individual account plan, and no proposal has been made to do so.[3]"I have stated in my last round that it would be a gradual transition. Not the immidiate change over my opponent is talking about. My opponent also miscontrews the idea in transition. Everyone would still have their funds with the transition in process. The Social Security budget has been used for other things in the government as they reallocated funds to pay for other projects. The most recent one was in the recent spending bill passed at the end of the year. The government could easily reallocate the budget for transition. http://www.youtube.com...Even if taxes for RIB needs to be raised, which is highly unlikely, it will be offset by the benefits coming from this plan since social security barely meets the Senior Citizen needs and Privatized RIB actually increases this substantially which would help Senior Citizens out and allow them to live more in comfort. Contention 1: Social Security will crash My opponnent agrees with this contention, but disagrees on the solution. The crisis brought up is simply that we cannot allow for Social Security RIB to become insolvent in the status quo as it would harm the average American. Without any type of alternative, this would create a massive issue for us as we would begin to see a decline in consumer spending as more Senior Citizens will have to move back into their children's home and we would return to an economic slump under this case. There are several other key issues that arise out of this, but the key objective is that there needs to be some sort of alternative given and the only way to do this is privatization. The government continuiously takes funds from Social Security and it would be easy to help use these funds instead of allocation for other projects, but to help in privatization. In 2015, it was reported that Social Security's Admin and benefits costs the US 24% of our national budget which is harming other programs we could be using it for or even simply using it to pay off our debts [4]. Contention 2: Privatization solves.My opponent brings up the Housing crisis again, but that is a case where the market was not regulated and in many to most circumstances it is. Medical Licensing is determined by the AMA yet they are private and have the public's best interest. After the crisis, the government put through several measures like instiuting the Voulcker rule with Dodd-Frank and now's there's a push to re-instate Glass-Stegal. Larger investments making things cheaper is a quite simple Trickle-down economics. With a large increase and imput that would be poored into the stock market, there would be a huge new amount of capital avialable. The owner's of these businesses where the stock is being bought would then see an increase in Equity which they could use to increase their assets either by purchasing of land, equipment, or any type of tangible assets. These long term assets would be able to give back to the economy through providing an increase in jobs for the building of these places and it's upkeep. This would create a great loop that would send our economy skyrocketing. Do to the ample amount of money aviable, people would be able to afford more goods which increases production and continues this loop. We would start to move towards full employment. We can see that there's a great deal of stocks that do go and bring back a great return the S&P has one averaging at 7%, but this is assuming that only one stock is invested in [5]. My opponent simply assumes that a great deal of the stock holders will hang on to the stocks all day long. Many of the traders today have the option to have a Profit and Loss limit in order to prevent huge losses and maintain maximum growth. We have to emphasize the ability to be able to inherit your RIB if you die. This is something that, in the status quo, is done inadiquately as the SSA only will allow a lump payment of $225, which is nowhere near what the family would need to supliment for the lost income [6]. My opponent attacks the Chilean example due to a few differences, but we do have to see that this is it's application in process and we cannot simply discard it do to that point and that point alone. Though there were some key differences we do have to see that the Chilean system did it with a ratio higher than the US when they started off and the Chilean economy wasn't as effective as the US and it helped change the Chilean economy into a powerhouse in the South American Continent. I would continue, but I am out of characters, so unfortunately I'll have to end my round here and pass things off to my opponent. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. ( http://tinyurl.com...)

Privatization is the least bad option. Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions."

Privatizing social security Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.

Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea Most of what is mentioned in our ref links has already been noted by the opposition; such as no protection from stock market losses,superior reliability/dependability of public funds; the U.K and U.S are market-based economies, self-interests of corporations(wall-street), people young now as well as baby-boomers will get less money for greater risk and so forth. We will now consider the link-points we haven't yet made: Govt. salaries will be reduced; Infamous Fact: There is no money in the public sector; reducing Govt. Pay will aggravate this issue. The U.S' experience [[http://www.nea.org/home/16546.htm]] reveals that many people fail to understand even the most basic aspects of investment and that most make bad investment decisions (eg. not diversifying investments: asset portfolio diversification is necessary to neutralize risk:basic logic behind mutual funds) [[Alicia Munnell, "We've Already Tried Private Accounts!" in The American Prospect , January 2005]] Disability funds will be dramatically cut by 19-45%; most of us get disabled in old age.[[http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/12badideas.pdf]] (we are not being patronizing as the prop suggests only reiterating fact). The U.S government will be indebted to the private sector; given the debt she's already taking on:This is not a good idea.(bad idea 3); people who are young now will get lower retirement pay or not get any if the market is down.(bad idea 9) Women+minority-races work less,live longer and earn less; privatizing securities will damage future prospects for minorities considerably.(point 10+11) Tax payers will not bail retirees; again we've already mentioned this lack of security. (point 12) We see the proposition as being confused about how we've defined the debate. We repeat: we are not including bank-based economies because they are not relevant having already employed this policy and having a different F.S from that of the nations(market-based) who need to make this choice.

Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.  By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Thank you lannan13 for an invigorating debate.

Pensions should be privatised Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea

Privatising social security would improve economic growth Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments. Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.

Privatizing social security Privatizing social security helps the poor.

Privatizing social security Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Alright, thanks to lannan for kicking this off, and let's get started. Burdens: This debate hinges on the comparison of two cases. As the rules in R1 don't stipulate that I cannot run a counter plan, I am allowed to do so. It is my burden to prove that my case is superior to Pro's, and Pro's burden to accomplish the opposite goal. Evaluation should focus on the net benefits of our impacts since we're discussing a policy change. 1) Harming retirees Note: SS = social security. Retirees will lose their SS benefits and have it replaced with three options: spend it, save it, or invest it. Spending the money provides a short term benefit to retirees that quickly runs out. Pro might argue that this is still better than the public system because it affords them increased liberties, but running out of funds when one is retired drastically reduces their options. Individuals who spend all of their money will end up becoming dependent on help from the government, especially as their health issues become more dramatic. The most conservative thing that these people could do with their money is place it in the bank. If they do that, however, they"re still doing far worse than they would through the public SS system. At the moment, SS payouts are indexed to wages, which have historically exceeded inflation and thus provided a measure of protection against changes in the value of the dollar.[1] Banks don"t provide that protection. How about investment? Investing through a brokerage firm is expensive to start, costing people 1% of their investments every year (as opposed to the single payment of 0.8% in expenses for the SS system).[2] Most people aren"t professional money managers. They won"t have the knowledge base to manage their own investments. Hell, most people don"t even have the basic financial literacy to know what a stock market is or why diversifying investments is important (many believe it guarantees them success in the stock market).[3] This is really bad, because even professionals generally underperform indexes of the market as a whole.[4] This means that most people are going to be dramatically underperforming in the stock market. Even if they were experts, the basic fact that the stock market fluctuates will ruin lives. There are countless examples of market downturns that could absolutely bankrupt retirees, and if someone retires at an unlucky time right before one of these occurs, they will lose everything.[5] Even during times of plenty, picking the wrong stock can lead to a dramatic loss. However, all of this is beside the point because we"re not just evaluating outcomes based on whether they"re net positive. If the rate of return is lower after turning to the private system than it is right now, that"s reason enough for us to eschew this option. Remember that I mentioned inflation earlier " that"s important here as well, because if rates of return on investments aren"t high enough, then they won"t beat inflation and the value of all that money for retirees goes down over time. Pro has to prove that the returns will be high enough to cover for inflation. Pro also hasn"t talked at all about the costs of implementing his plan. The government is going to have to create a large number of private accounts into which this money will be deposited, that"s pretty much how every privatization scheme works. The cost of doing that is not small. It will take some 2 to 4% of the payroll tax out of the 12.4% that"s taken, which means up to almost a third of the revenue generated from this tax would be removed.[6]. This is largely the result of having to plunge into the trust fund currently being set aside for retiring baby boomers (which is the reason that SS is still alive and kicking), requiring that the government start borrowing from the private sector (increasing our debt), raise taxes, or slash benefits. (2) Failure of Privatization To start, I'd like to be clear that Pro's proposal has never been done anywhere. His system doesn't exist in any part of the world. An untried, completely theoretical system like his should not be employed anywhere, but if it is going to be employed, it shouldn't be country-wide where the opportunities and consequences of failure are at their absolute worst. That being said, there are examples of other countries that have implemented privatization schemes. I couldn't find an example of a country where something like this was employed where the governments didn't implement a subsidy system to ensure that workers who fail to accumulate enough money into their accounts earn a minimum pension, a plank that is not visible in Pro's plan. However, even with those protections, country-wide privatization has only resulted in dramatic failures. Both Chile and the UK have done it, and both of them have encountered tremendous problems. In Chile, "more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age."[7] Their investment accounts are so low that 41% of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. In fact, it"s so bad that their returns are less than if they"d simply kept their money in a savings account.[8] They"ve also suffered abnormally high transition costs, making just the process of transitioning in each decade cost a sizable slice of the GDP.[9] In the UK, people have become victims to poor investment choices and crooked brokers. The government itself has suffered major expense increases and lost tax revenues. According to Adair Turner, the head of a British government commission assessing reports on these problems, "[w]hat looked like a very good idea from a financial perspective in cutting costs has put pensioner poverty, which had been all but eradicated, back on the agenda."[10] But we can also look to an example from the U.S. Yes, some areas of Texas opted out of SS before the law was changed in 1983. This amounts to 3 counties: Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda.[11] Now, let's be clear that I'm not supporting the notion that the results of these 3 counties should be used as evidence for the effectiveness of such a program country-wide. They're all on far too small of a scale (they amount to roughly 674,000 people total [12]) to be comparable to implementation on a nationwide scale. Moreover, the Alternate Plan that they have in place is significantly different from Pro's proposal, since money is still taken out of their paychecks on a constant basis and placed into a separate account, meaning that this system bears far more similarity to SS than Pro's proposal does. But if we are going to compare them, it should be noted that even the creators of the Alternate Plan note that the options for rapid removal of funds end up depleting these accounts, leaving people unprotected and resulting in individuals becoming "wards of the state."[11] In other words, they just become wholly dependent on the system to keep them alive through other means. (3) Counter Plan To understand this, I first must explain that while SS is flawed, it is not inherent to the program. In fact, SS is not only currently solvent, but generating a surplus of some $2.8 trillion as of 2014 (and rising). [13] It will take at least two decades for this program to run up a deficit, by which I mean that it will deplete its reserves.[14] Pro"s system would utterly destroy SS, so he"s essentially responding to the problem by demolishing it early. But let"s be clear that SS does a lot more than just provide a safety net to 59 million Americans.[15] The government does use that money for a lot of important tasks, including other safety nets and military spending.[16] Removing that money from the government necessitates that they either borrow or tax more to cover them, or that they slash those programs, which adds to the various harms Pro"s plan incurs. However, I recognize that SS has its problems, and it"s because I do that I"m offering a counter plan. My fix is two-fold: (1) to eliminate the tax cap currently in place on SS payroll taxes, and (2) slightly increase SS taxation. (1) Currently, people who earn more than $118,500 don"t pay these taxes on any amount they earn above that.[17] This system is inherently biased for them, allowing individuals who probably will have more than enough money upon retirement to simply coast without SS to go free of payroll taxes on what could well be the vast majority of their earnings. This plank would be implemented over the course of 10 years, and they could even get a boost in benefit payments for their extra input. This comes out to a 74% reduction in the SS shortfall. It"s also a change that garners widespread support.[18] (2) Currently, workers pay 6.2% of their earnings into the system, with employers paying a matching amount. Simply increasing that amount to 6.9% over the course of the next 20 years would eliminate the remaining 26% shortfall. Note that this amounts to 50 cents more per week for someone earning $100,000 a year. This is also extremely popular.[18] Note that the CBO also did estimates of the effect of both of these, and came to similar conclusions.[19] Conclusion: While I do wholeheartedly support my counter plan, even the status quo stands as far better than Pro"s proposal. His case is a clear net negative. Meanwhile, the status quo keeps this system around for at least the next two decades, and my counter plan leaves it solvent for the foreseeable future. Back to Pro. 1. http://1.usa.gov... 2. http://theatln.tc... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://slate.me... 6. http://brook.gs... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://nyti.ms... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://1.usa.gov... 14. http://1.usa.gov... 15. http://pewrsr.ch... 16. http://cbsn.ws... 17. http://1.usa.gov... 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://1.usa.gov...

Privatizing social security Privatization is the least bad option.

Privatizing social security Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds.

Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea We shall only address arguments raised within the 2000 characters. We see a difference between further substantiating points with references and referring to a source for an entire argument (or 12 as the case may be). So, here goes: -Superior reliability/dependability of public funds Unsubstantiated assertion. State pensions are unsustainable (see last argument). In the US "when Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per beneficiary."[[http://socialsecurity.procon.org/]] -UK/US are market based They have relatively smaller government sectors and among the most developed private pension systems in Europe. "Around half" of UK citizens have voluntary private pensions, the highest in Europe.[[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/5/39524851.pdf] Being more market-oriented is not as devastating for pension schemes as the opposition would have us believe. -Self-Interests of Corporations Yes, their search for profit leads them to compete with each other to attract consumers and government regulation ensures competition. This is how mixed economies work. Governments don't have this incentive as they are focused on the short-term (see our 1st point which has not been denied by the opposition). -"There is no money in the public sector" and privatizing will aggravate this Exactly. This is partly caused by the fiscal burden of pensions and shows the system isn't sustainable. The opposition are suggesting pension funds are sources of government income. This is the government short-sightedness we talked about (arg 1), spending money they don't have because they won't have to deal with the consequences in 20 years. -Less money for greater risk. Unsubstantiated assertion. See example of Chile (Piñera quote) and next rebut. Lastly, we remind the opposition that the right of definition lies with the proposition. As clearly explained in our 2nd rebut, we firmly stand by ours

Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."

Privatizing social security Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.

Privatizing social security Privatization would not increase capital for investment.

social security should b means tested against the rich First off, I would like to point out that your theory is flawed. You state that if we cut out benefits for the top 10%, we would have 10% more money to give to the poor but you fail to realize that the Rich have been paying for social security their whole lives. Suddenly removing benefits for something these people had already paid for (Whether they need it or not) is Robbery, unchristian and Sure to make a Ruckus. Whether you are Christian or not, The Scriptures tell us that we have a right to Reap what we Sow, and though not all of the Founding fathers were Christian, this principle is what America was founded on. This being said, The System hardly gives any Benefits to the Rich, or the Middle class. An Average Citizen will get 2-3% Feedback from the System. In a Nutshell, A Life time of payment for a mere 2-3% Increase. Addressing your Second Paragraph, You will make just about the same amount Money by merely saving up for retirement, than you will being enrolled in social security. Our Populace has grown accustomed to the Government providing free services, and hand-outs, so much so that they do not realize they are getting a Raw deal. Privatized Rates are Traditionally higher than Government Rates, because Private companies have competition to keep the Prices down, and the Benefits up. In Contrast to the measly 2-3% of Social Security Feed-back, over the past century private stock has had on average an 8% feedback. Privatizing the system would certainly be a step in the right direction, as the Government could focus on things like Defense, Prosperity, and International freedom, instead of owing 7 Million of it's own citizens money. Facing the Cold Hard Facts, the Government is in debt to its own citizens and must take away funds from our safety and international standing, perhaps even hiking taxes (America already being one of the highest taxed nation in the World) on the next generation, who are ill-prepared to pay, as they themselves want a nice fat check from the government. The system of Social security is a century old idea that is failing to conform to modern needs. Capitalism, is Thousands of years old, has provided, and endured. Privatizing the system, as I have briefly discussed earlier, is a more stable, and profitable system for not just the Poor, or Rich, or Middle-Class, but for all Americans who put their fair share into it. Citations: . http://www.wsj.com...

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Let us get back to the debate. Contention 1: Harming Retirees My opponent argues that Privitazation would harm the retirees, but this is fallacous. I have shown last round they will be given an oppertunity to do with it as they please as they will have full ownership of the money in their private accounts. [1] With the ending of the government monopoly on the issue they can chose to do a multitude of things from investing in the stock market to banking or from investing in things like existing Roth IRAs and 401K plans. We would have to realize that opening the market will allow a multitude of new businesses to rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens and look out for their best interstests. Not to mention that you would be able to own your own accounts. Just as a Legal immirgrant was denied any sort of Social Security even though he was a registered US citizen and he paid taxes, but was dennied his SS benefits, but under privitization these options are open to anyone. [2] My opponent fears a stock market SS option, but that is a rediculious fear. We have seen that upon an investment you can see an anuall growth of 11% of your account showing a great deal of economic growth. That's just without a large investment if this plan is ennacted. [3] Let's do some generic math here to see the net benefit or loss from this. -The average stock grows 10% each year. [4] -Average dividend is 3%[5] -Inflation is about 3.2% [6] So mathematically we can expect to see an average of 9.8% growth in earnings each year while the individual under Social Security would be at 2.7-3.2%. Which after 42 years (from age 18-60) under this plan you'll get $711,000 vs. if you just stuck with the status quo Social Security you can get the maximum of $118,500. [7] Even if this cap is eliminated under this estimate under my opponent's system it will only rise to a whopping $126,000. Not to mention that this is just simply the average stock vs. SS max. Can you image if you get better than normal? You'd be a millionare. We can see that on the Solvency here and the balance of the impacts my plan outweighs my opponents. We can see that this would be a gradual thing that will be phased out of in 10 years. Last year Social Security ate up 26% of the US budget with $906 billion and this number is growing. Funding will simply come from the existing SS budget as the number will sink as the accounts are being privitized. [8] Contention 2: Privatization I know that my system hasn't been tried anywhere, but that doesn't mean that it would outright fail. How do you think we've gotten to the moon. With that I will move on to some of the examples that my opponent has brought up to show why he is incorrect and ommitting a great deal of the truth from you. The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control. You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Contention 3: Counter Plan I agree with my opponent that something here needs to be done, but his purposal is purposterous and will wreck the economy. We currently see that the tax rate is currently 6.20% for Social Security and Medicare is approximately 1.45%. We can see that the tax rate wouldn't go up by 0.7%, but we would see a jump to at least 9% in order to cover the Social Security Costs over the next 75 years. Economicst Emmanuel Saez and Jefferey Libberman have found that even if we eliminate the Tax Cap we can still see a 40% short fall of SSA statistics. [11] So even if Con's plan is enacted it wouldn't improve the situation, but actually make it worse. He also found that if any raise did occur then they actually found that poor women would actually have a negative earnings and their money that they would be pooring into the system would be worth a whole lot less then if it was implamented. Not only was it found that the nation would get less income from the taxation, but people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan than the SSA's by $1,000s at many times and begins to stagnate around those who make $60,000 and up. [12] We can actually see that one of the key things we have here is that those above the Tax Max make well less than those who pay into the system. It turns out that those over tend to make a whoping 5% over the tax limit while the rest make out richer in the end. We can also see that with the current federal tax bracket there is 45% tax rate for the top bracket. [13] After the increase at federal and state level which includes raising the tax rates to accomidate this we can see they will wind up with an overal 12% tax increase to the point to where they are tax higher than those in Scandinavia and we still wouldn't see Substantial solvency in the long run still leading to this counter-plan to be a failure. [14] Not to mention that this plan still doesn't solve for much of the issues with current Social Security Standings as not only is it worse, but we can see that there's still holes in it. We can still see that in the long run we will still see a Bridge Payer system here and with the US population growing older we can see that this issue will only continue to grow worse and the problem needs to be fixed now. Just as under Con's plan and the Status Quo, the US Federal Government can still use the SS funds to do whatever they want with it as they please and for many Americans it will just seem like another way more money is being squeezed out of Americans and our Senior Citizens still won't see a dime. [15] Not to mention if they die before they reach the age that they would be able to receive it, under Con's Plan just as the Status Quo, the funds would dissolve, but under my plan, as I have shown last round, will move to the clostest living relitive. Sources 1. (Michael D. Tanner, "Is There a Right to Social Security? ," cato. org, Nov. 25, 1998) 2. (Social Security Administration, "Social Security History: Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor," ssa. gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015) 3. Aswath Damodaran, "Annual Returns on Stock, Bonds and T-bill’s: 1928 - Current," New York University Stern School of Business website, Jan. 5, 2015 4. (. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) 5. (. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...) 6. (. http://inflationdata.com...) 7. (. http://www.kiplinger.com...) 8. (Courtney Baird, "Diving into the Deficit," Committee for Economic Development website, Nov. 6, 2014) 9. (. http://www.cato.org...) 10. (. http://www.texaspolicy.com...) 11. ( . http://eml.berkeley.edu...) 12. ( 1 Saez (2001) shows, when deriving the optimal non-linear marginal tax rate formula, that the same Laffer rate formula applies when considering a local marginal tax rate increase exactly as in our 90% of earnings)13. (. http://fee.org...) 14. ( Andrew G. Biggs, “Entitlements: Not Just a Health Care Problem,” AEI Retirement Policy Outlook (August 2008), www. aei. org/outlook/28443. See also Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (Washington, DC, June 2010), www. cbo. gov /doc. cfm? index=11579 (accessed March 8, 2011). 15. ( Michael Tanner, "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor," cato. org, July 26, 1996)26, 1996)

Privatizing social security Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.

Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Voters are tired of big government. They are tired of bailouts and government taking over various private sector industries. With personal accounts, voters now have a chance to reduce the power in Washington, and reclaim some of the economic liberty that was taken away from them. Candidates for Congress should adopt that message and support it loudly."

The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...

The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11) Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts.[1] Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: " has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one."[2] Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.”[3] There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: "You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both." These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security.[4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations. [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [3] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [4] Dick, Stephen. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...

Privatizing social security Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.

Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street Another point the proposition could have made but did not is that Wall street is pushing for privatization of pension funds: The opposition's answer:The only reason the U.S financial services industry has favored private pension funds is because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees(incl. premiums) on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. The N.P.V(net present value) of payments of financial fees to private companies in the case of privatizing securities will be a dramatic profit of $940 billion over 75 years. [[Austan Goolsbee, "The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers", pdfsmall.gif PDF, 8 pp, September 2004.]] However, such funds can never benefit the ordinary citizens of the U.S and other market-based economies. For the sole reason that it is too risky. While and we have said this before; for economies that are largely bank-based the market and thus private pension funds play a rather unimportant insignificant role in terms of citizen welfare. As companies/schemes/funds rise and fall based on their relations with prominent banks and not on the ups and downs of markets; in a market economy once pension funds are privatized wall street benefits, the public is duped and most(if not all) of us are victimized by financial scams of the kind noted earlier. The market is unpredictable; we the citizens of these nations are not equipped with the financial expertise required to handle our own finances. Wall street is wary of the tricks of the trade and how to bend the rules to favor finance gurus. Betting on two opposite future outcomes is one such tactic. If everyone was taught finance in school things would be different; however, that is not presently the case. We can not set the public up for disasters it has faced in the past, that too not at an old-weak age; knowing that the factors contributing to the dismal effects of free Marketisation/Marketization still exist.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Thanks to lannan for the solid debate. It was a pleasure. Pro has 2 ways to win this: 1. Showing that my CP doesn"t uphold the role of government 2. Showing that his plan is more net beneficial I"ll go through both. 1. The Role of Government Pro"s just not clear on why the role of government outweighs a basic net benefits calculus, never explaining why phantom duties are important and dropping all of his nebulous impact calculus from the previous round. He keeps touting the "Right to Choose" but never examines why that right is essential, and even states that there are instances where the right to choose is outweighed by other issues. So even if he is winning this, it"s not clear enough to matter alongside the central debate on net benefits. However, he"s not winning this. He provides absolutely no response to my quote from his own source on imperfect duties, which I"ll repeat: "imperfect duties" come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent... aid and assist others." That quote is the nail in the coffin for this argument. Pro has to explain why this is not one of those times that government should aid and assist. Instead, he simply makes a blanket assertion that they should NEVER engage in imperfect duties, which is in direct contradiction to his own source. Private actors don"t have any duty to assist, but governments do. Moreover, as health and debt are public issues (Pro only asserts that they"re private, in spite of my warrants and evidence to the contrary), they need to be handled by the government. But let"s say you"re buying his argument that choice and freedom matter most. You"re still siding with me. He doesn"t explain how becoming a ward of the state, which is so often what privatization leads to, is a lesser loss of choice and freedom than taxation. He doesn"t explain how the lack of a public option improves the right to choose. Any of the potential harms he presents for creating businesses and investing lack any sort of brink analysis, with Pro assuming that there"s no way anyone paying into the system can actually accomplish these. They can! They still have money, and they"re getting more of it! Clearly, I"m upholding the right to choose and basic freedoms better than Pro. With all these turns, you can flow this argument to my side. 2. The Case Comparison So, let"s take a step back from the contention debate for this one. What are the benefits and harms of Pro"s case? In terms of benefits, some minority of seniors may do extremely well. He can"t assume that what they"re going to do with that money is broadly beneficial, but sure, some will do well. If you sent all of these seniors to a casino and had them play blackjack for a few hours, the odds tell us that some are likely to come out with a lot more money than they started with. The harms, however, are far more blatant. Many seniors are likely to lose everything in the process of these few gaining riches. Pro CONCEDES that stocks will change constantly, granting Stein"s Law and thus inconsistency in the stock market. Note the quote I took from Pro"s source last round: "Stock returns are wild and unpredictable. Since 1927, the S&P 500 stock index has gained 10.4% a year on average. But in any given year it could be up 29.9% or down 9.0% or somewhere in between."[26] This isn"t a matter of average gains. People are going to be randomly bankrupted in mass by any downturns; that dramatically outweighs any potential and temporary benefits to those who just happen to get lucky with their timing. The big boosts of the last few years followed on a terrible recession where many people lost their life savings. However, what we should be most concerned with is the future of the stock market, not its past. Pro drops my [25], which shows that any beneficial trend occurring right now is going to come to a screeching halt. Pro doesn"t contest this, the very scenario that matters most for his case. Further, Pro drops that doing as well as the market index (a major assumption of Pro's) isn"t going to happen. If professional money managers can"t do it, most seniors won"t be able to do it either. So even if you"re buying Pro's numbers and that they'll remain stable, it doesn"t matter because most people won"t be achieving anywhere near them. Pro doesn"t defend any of the alternate choices for the use of this money, so extend all of my arguments to this effect. Pro cannot fiat that individuals will just invest in the stock market, and since many are likely to a) spend it all quickly (as many have in the 3 Texas counties I cited), b) save it in a bank and get less return than SS, or c) place that money in IRAs and 401K plans, which are highly risky, all of these people are going to be dramatically harmed. Pro gives no upside to any of these. So you"re not buying his financial arguments. You"re not buying his fantasies of private industry swooping in and saving the day. You"re not buying that dividend stocks are a safe or consistent source of funds for seniors. You"re not buying that most seniors are going to make out like bandits with a system they barely understand. What you are buying is that more seniors will be put in danger. Seniors investing in stocks they don"t understand for dividends that won"t pay the bills and putting their funds (and thus, the freedoms that are supposed to come with retirement) at great risk reenforces this. You're buying that the examples I"ve presented showcase this risk: A) Chile, which both the World Bank and the Chilean government itself have independently concluded to be a dramatic failure in this area. Pro has dropped every source I've given on this, and none of his sources counter them. It doesn't matter whether some people are theoretically doing better. It matters "that as many as half of all workers" will not receive a minimum pension. It matters that "[m]ore than 17 percent of Chile"s retirees" will have to keep working because of it, and many won"t even find work. Pro spends a lot of his final round focused on how the country is doing, but a) he ignores the extensive criticism of Pi"era (who is his only source on this) that I posted last round, b) he ignores the Chilean government, which estimates that privatization costs alone account for 4-6% of GDP every year from the 1980s to 2037,[29] c) Chile"s economy is not looking good as of late,[32] d) the reasons for its growth aren"t nearly so straightforward as Pro claims,[33] and e) it doesn"t matter how Chile as a whole is doing if it"s throwing its senior citizens under the bus in order to get there. B) Pro's only response to the UK only reenforces the link. Why does Pro believe that crooked brokers aren"t an issue in the U.S.? If anything, they"re a bigger issue here.[34, 35] As such, you're buying widespread pensioner poverty as a result of privatization. C) Pro wholly drops the 3 Texas counties. This is devastating to his case. It"s a U.S. example and, as such, it applies most directly of these. My citation clearly shows that many seniors in these counties are becoming wards of the state. This re-enforces the turn on Pro"s C1 and supercharges the links to all of his negative impacts. So all that"s left is to cover my counter plan, and this is where Pro"s in the most trouble. Almost all of his rebuttals amount to little more than assertions that my numbers are wrong, but he never challenges any of the sources that support them. Over and over, he claims that 9% is the magical number, but he never provides any sources that show this. Again, look to my [18] and [19], both solid links that reinforce my numbers. He can"t just throw random numbers out and hope to get anywhere. His view that my case is somehow worse than status quo is beyond absurd. He doesn"t explain where the harm comes from, merely providing a vague source without a single quote. I don"t see how making SS solvent for the foreseeable future is a net negative, and even if it was just extending the life of it a few decades, I don"t see how that"s harmful. But this isn"t a Band-Aid. This isn"t smoke and mirrors. It isn't, as Pro asserts, a "Bridge-payment system". It's a real solution. Pro simply asserts that my source is wrong when it comes to SS insurance, but his claims amount to little more than complaining that he can"t find evidence against it. SS may exclude some people, but Pro"s idea to simply exclude EVERYONE is not a rational response. While these harms are nebulous at best and terribly flawed at worst, the benefits of my counter plan are evident. I"ve shown that it will keep SS solvent, despite Pro"s claims to the contrary, meaning that all of the financial harms he"s cited go away. I"ve shown that my counter plan gets huge majority support. I"ve shown that the government needs these funds to delve into in order to keep programs like the military and other safety nets afloat. This is CRITICAL, as it"s the one impact that Pro has utterly failed to address. You can extend it across the board: without SS, many U.S. programs would falter and even our military funding would be put at risk. Conclusion: Pro"s case has been all about ideals of choice and financial freedom, but that idealism simply doesn"t pan out when faced with the harsh light of reality. There"s simply no way his theoretical case will have any real solvency. He fails to address even one of my sources, merely presenting more and more sources that are more and more flawed, and giving numerical analysis that makes no sense whatsoever. Meanwhile, my case is clearly supported by the facts on the ground and real, widely verified numbers from reputable sources. I'm addressing all of the major relevant issues behind the potential success and failure of Pro's case, and those of mine, and explaining how my analysis applies best to the cases as they stand. Therefore, I urge a vote for Con. 32. http://bloom.bg... 33. http://herit.ag... 34. http://huff.to... 35. http://hrld.us...

Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds. Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Diverting up to four percentage points of the payroll tax to create private accounts as the president has proposed would shorten significantly the time until the Trust Funds become depleted. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As Figure 1 shows, the Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.

Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline—all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president’s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter."

Privatizing social security Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.

Support for privatization is driven by misinformation. Max Skidmore. "Why Privatizing Social Security Is a Terrible Idea." History News Network. February 28th, 2005: "There can be little doubt, at least among those who view the issue objectively, that it is purely iIdeology (or misinformation), not economics, that generates the enthusiasm for privatization."

Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "privatization would provide retirees with a much higher rate of return on their investments."

Privatizing social security Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.

Privatizing social security Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns

Privatizing social security Social security is basically a giant ponzi scheme.

Privatizing social security Public supports private social security accounts.

Abolish Social Security Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.

Abolish Social Security Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer’s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it’s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro’s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There’s no denying there’ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It’s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro’s cit.#3, the NCPA, “The NCPA’s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control”. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There’s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro’s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it’s “assumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,”echoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That’s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states “Social Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans” then concludes “scaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.” Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it’s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let’s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don’t look attractive considering ½ of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it’ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro’s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro’s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush’s plan, in office at the time, hence the title “President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.”It’s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here’s the catch, SS OASDI “would require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits”With his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there’ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They’ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro’s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:“The first part is that people are mishandling their money…”Just a reminder, you brought this up “Posted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.” You have a plan? It’s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It’s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You’ll do it in 10? Pro’s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn’t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro’s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.“The biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.” Pro’s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro’s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...

Privatizing social security Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy

Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out. Because my opponent did not submit an argument, I continue to advocate which I stated in the previous round. In closing, I am not against the idea of Social Security. I think that it was a necessary program in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2 to help lift America out of economic turmoil and aid struggling seniors. But since then, many more tools and methods have become available to save for retirement and build up a "nest egg". Some of these methods are much more effective than social security and provide the holder with a real tangoble asset which they can pass down to their spouse or children. I am not saying take away Social Security. It should still be left in place but it should be made optional for those who are savvy investors and savers and would feel that they can save more effectively using an alternative method to the social security system. I urge everyone to vote CON. Thank you!

Privatizing social security Privatization during economic crisis would have been disaster.

Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation: "Reason #4: privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.": "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.” [read extended quote in argument page].

Private social security accounts are voluntary. Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."

Personal Retirement Accounts should replace Entitlements Thanks for accepting. As per say the resolution, I will advance the notion that personal accounts should be used for personal retirement security rather than government entitlement programs. C1: Personal Accounts Generate Higher Returns Social Security has an annual rate of return of 1.23%. [1] The S&P 500 has about a 7% CAGR after administrative costs are taken in. [2] This is the average, so it includes both the horrible years like 2008 and the great years like 1998. Assuming that the person had the average household income of $43,000 [3], worked for 35 years and had a retirement lasting 12 years, we get drastically different results regarding the two choices. § Social Security (12.4% payroll tax), provides a retirement balance of = $234,330, or $1,627.30 a month. § Personal Account (12.4% rate) provides a retirement balance of = $788,674.57, or $5,476.91 a month. As we can see, personal accounts invested fully in the S&P 500 that yield just the average return of this index result with a fabulously high value, that would provide excellent retirement security. Since Social Security has such a low rate of return, people who invested in the stock market could easily invest lower percentages of their income while getting a higher return for their retirement. For example, using the income used earlier, one could invest only 4% of their income in the stock market, and still have a higher retirement balance, while having over 8% higher take home pay (before including Medicare payroll savings). To conclude, personal accounts invested in the S&P or other securities would create much higher balances for a secure retirement compared to Social Security. C2: Improves the Economy Having a huge infusion of wealth into the stock market makes the value of stocks go higher. This generates greater capital for businesses, which allows them to make critical investments in America through business expansion, wealth accumulation, investing in capital goods, or by increasing R&D. When businesses are allowed to use their wealth to pursue their self interest, society is better off with improved economic growth. Payroll taxes discourage hiring. By eliminating these taxes, you likewise get more hiring and employment. In fact, some studies have pointed out an increase of more than 10% more jobs in the long run, by cutting payroll taxes by 10 points, or more than 3% more jobs in the short run. Assuming that individuals set aside 8% of their income, using the transitive property, this means job creation of more 11.5 million new jobs from a conservative estimate. [4] (this includes the elimination of Medicare payroll taxes.) Economic growth leads to lower unemployment and higher wages, and thus a greater standard of living for society as a whole. Also, Social Security and Medicare together have unfunded liabilities in excess of $121.5 trillion dollars, or more than $1 million per taxpayer. This is devastating, purely diasastrous to the economy. It's purely a message of economic devastation. [5] C4: Economic Liberty ----- Freedom By letting the individual have their own personal account, they are free to choose how they use their money, not acting under government coercion. This economic freedom leads to improved personal wellbeing — and people would have greater take home pay. Personal responsibility would make sure that often-times the money is used prudently and is fit for individual needs. Personal accounts guarantee economic freedom, you are free to choose how you use your money. Wealth accumulated in personal accounts could be passed onto their kin after their death, allowing families to have greater economic security. ----- Tax Relief Payroll taxes are regressive taxes, and specifically harm the poor. The 15.85% of income that the poor pay in payroll taxes alone kills job creation and harms them particularly negatively by reducing their income. In fact, for some ethnic minorities they get back less in benefits more than they pay in. [1] For the average household income, income would rise by $3,375.5, after assuming they set aside 8% for retirement. C5: Historically Safe Investments The 7% CAGR (compounded annual growth rate) for the S&P 500 is the average. This includes both the great years like 1998 and the bad years like 2008. It's the average. Since these stocks are remarkably safe over time, they are safer here than having government mess with it. Politicians have taken hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other projects. With this huge inflow of wealth to the U.S. government, it is likely to be squandered and used for other things. This reduces retirement security for regular Americans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Health Care in Retirement For secure health care during retirement, health insurance retirement accounts (HIRAs) are good options to use. Let's say workers put 2% into their personal account. These funds are invested as to how the worker chooses. We will assume that the return of 7% is used again. After 65, funds are annuitizied, securities are liquidated, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs. The aspect of liquidating assets is completely voluntary. Assuming $43,000 annually; (43,000 x 0.02 = $860) Total = 860 x [1.0736 - 1] - 860 [.07] = $ 127,205.58, or $10,600 a year. As we can see, seniors will have health retirement security they need if this proposal was adopted by voluntary individuals. These funds would optimally supplement their health savings account, which would provide health care security to those in retirement. Conclusion Individuals should be able to have personal accounts to replace entitlements. People will have secure retirement, with high rates of return generated by the stock market. In fact, using just the average return from the S&P 500 would show that personal accounts would dramatically increase wealth for retirees, improve their security, while creating broad prosperity for Americans who are free to choose to invest and save their money where they wish. Without entitlements, we would have a more limited government, with a lower public debt. Personal responsibility would replace Washington's transfers of wealth, that harm the poor by robbing them of large chunks of their income. Ultimately, personal accounts ensure retirement security, and enhances and protects economic liberty. Job creation, and increased investment from businesses and individuals alike makes the economy grow, generating over 11.5 milllion new jobs while improving living standards, and increasing take home pay. Limited government reduces coercion, and a growing economy helps America flourish. It's fair that you own your money because you earned it. You have the liberty to choose how much, and where you invest your money. You have the responsibility for yourself, and to make sure you have a good retirement balance. You have the opportunity to make yourself wealthy in your retirement and help your kids. If you had a stock that had a negative return, or didn't outpace inflation, you would dump it. Then why don't we dump our entitlement programs? Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.getamericaworking.org... [5] http://usdebtclock.org...

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security To clarify the situation, both Pro and I have agreed that we will roll forward with the counter plan I've presented as my advocacy. I will stick to it. The rule in R1 that I could present no counter plans is therefore no longer in effect, and I do apologize for the confusion on this issue. Pro's case: C1: The Role of Government Pro never supports his P1. He hasn't explained why governments should not enforce imperfect duties, only why they must enforce perfect duties. In fact, his own quote belies the fault in his claim, stating that imperfect duties "come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent... aid and assist others." This means that governments must engage in SOME imperfect duties like SS. Pro claims that SS is somehow infringing on some unknown governmental duty, and that this somehow undermines humanity (not sure what that means). He doesn't explain why private actors are inherently better, and none of his sources support that view. Health and debt are public issues, especially with regards to infectious diseases and their effects on the overall economy.[20] Pro seems to be arguing that any loss of freedom cannot be justified, but becoming a ward of the state is a bigger loss of freedom. This is also an argument against all taxation, which would defund the entire government and stop enforcement of perfect duties. I never argued that governments create rights. SS is beneficial, and governments should protect their citizens after a long life of working and contributing to society. That's reason enough to support its continued existence. Lastly, Pro brings up distributive justice. He mainly just name drops, citing Nozick and Toqueville, but fails to explain their views on SS, why anyone else should share those views, or why enforcing positive rights is harmful. He gives no reason why SS prevents individuals from being "self-entrapenurial." Since they can use all of the money they get from SS and any money they have left over from earnings to invest, Pro isn't providing any clear harm. He mentions the Libertarian Principle, but only asserts its claims. He doesn't show how he's ensuring that people will work harder or work towards the betterment of society. Placing the elderly in a situation where they will likely become wards of the state and huge burdens on their families ensures that all of these purported benefits are turned against him. C2: SS flaws This contention attacks the current system, and is therefore not responsive to my case. However, the status quo is still better than Pro's case. All he's shown is that by 2034, SS will no longer fully pay for itself. That's not an insurmountable problem, and Pro's system is the only one that ends SS benefits without recourse. C3: Privatization "solves" Pro talks about the right to choose (while denying SS as an option) without impacting choice. He showcases political efforts towards privatization, again sans impact. He points to Texas and Florida as examples, but a) his source [12] doesn't support his numbers or even reference the states, b) they only reduced the size of SS, which is actually another alternative to his case. Pro cites Martin Feldstein, whose views on this issue have been widely debunked.[21] Even Arnold Kling, an economist who supports privatization, states that his "'stock market scenario' is bogus... [it] assumes that the stock prices will grow faster than the economy forever. This violates Stein's Law, which says that anything that can't go on forever, stops... real GDP growth will be closer to 3 percent than 5.5 percent." That return still fails to beat inflation. I'll address the remainder of this on my case. My case: C1: Harming Retirees Pro drops that professional money managers, by and large, will not even make the 3% market index I cited above, and gives no reason why anyone is likely to do better, let alone do well enough to beat out the wage indexing of SS payouts (which consistently exceeds inflation). He drops that investment through brokerage firms, one of the few safer places to do so, automatically reduces their returns. He drops that any market downturn will bankrupt retirees. Pro points to IRAs and 401K plans alternative investments. However, both of these are terrible options. When the economy crashed between 2007 and 2008, IRAs and 401k plans lost 47% of their value, showcasing a tremendous risk. "Retirement experts find that these plans have numerous shortcomings, including high operation costs and low investment returns. The biggest problem with defined contribution plans is that alone they do not provide retirees with guaranteed retirement income."[22] Pro presents a fantasy scenario where businesses "rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens". He doesn't support this, and it's incredibly unlikely, given that private medical providers have exploited such opportunities to bilk seniors out of money.[23, 24] Pro's "generic math" is absurd. His first source here shows that the stock market improved over the last century, but unless Pro can show that this trend will continue (no such luck [25]), this means nothing going forward. Moreover, the upward trend isn't consistent. From his own source: "Stock returns are wild and unpredictable. Since 1927, the S&P 500 stock index has gained 10.4% a year on average. But in any given year it could be up 29.9% or down 9.0% or somewhere in between."[26] Many investments will fail and these seniors will be without any funds whatsoever. The harms to them and their families outweigh some people getting rich. Pro's dividends source actually shows them averaging at 1.87% as of 2014. That number is highly taxed. Not all stocks pay dividends, but those that do aren't actually better investments, as: dividends are highly taxed, they don't hold up in bad markets, dividend-paying stocks generally underperform the market, they sacrifice diversification, and are unreliable as a source of future income.[27, 28] Pro's source on inflation is correct, but that's still more than the 3% average I cited. C2: Pro admits his case is entirely theoretical, which makes it that much harder for him to prove he has any solvency. Pro ignores all my sources and warrants on Chile, asserting that the problem is the public option. However, a) he doesn't explain how the public option is harmful, b) he fails to note that 90% of people switched to the private system (from his own source), c) the transition costs, which Pro dropped, still apply to Pro's case, and d) Pi"era, the economist Pro cites, has been widely criticized by both World Bank, which found that fees and costs negate much of the benefits and returns are lower than he claims, and the Chilean government itself, which estimates "that as many as half of all workers" will not even be able to receive a minimum pension after paying into their account for 30 years, making them reliant on subsidies. "More than 17 percent of Chile's retirees now continue working because they can't afford to live on their pensions... and another 7 percent want to work, but can't find jobs."[29] Pro drops the UK example, and thus the link to his case is solid. As for Galveston, Pro's not implementing the Alternate Plan. He's not garnering those benefits. He dropped that many seniors in these 3 Texas counties become wards of the state, a harm that applies to his case. C3: Counter Plan On the tax cap, Pro's chart isn't applicable, since it only focuses on numbers of people rather than amounts of tax money. His [11] doesn't explain the effect of this change within the context of what SS requires to be solvent. By contrast, my [18] from U.S. News and World Report and [19] from the CBO both discuss the correct subject in the correct context, which means voters should buy my 74% estimate from my [18], and the decade by decade analysis on page 47 of my [19]. On the tax increase, Pro doesn't explain why 9% is the magic number at which SS is made solvent. Pro drops both of my sources, which show that a 0.5% (lower than mine) rise as sufficient to cover 26% of the SS shortfall, so that level of solvency is certain. Pro claims that poor women will somehow "have negative earnings" despite being taxed only 0.7% more of them. He gives no warrants for this, nor does his source explain. The reality is that women are likely to do far worse under privatization, since they rely more on SS and they cannot outlive these benefits, among other reasons.[30] Pro's states "people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan". His source for this doesn't discuss SS at all, he doesn't explain where he got his numbers from, and he doesn't show the calculation. He continues on this path with arguments that somehow turn an increase of much less than 6.9% (because most of that's already applied to a good portion of their income) into a 12% increase on the rich, though he doesn't explain how this happens or how it's harmful. I agree that the government uses the money from SS for other things " that was part of my argument. It's extremely important towards keeping other programs (like the military) afloat. Pro doesn't say why this is bad. As for perception, Pro ignores clear support for both my proposals, which shows that both the outcomes and the means to achieve them are likely to improve public opinion of SS. Pro is wrong that SS funds disappear if you die. Survivors insurance uses your SS benefits to protect your family after death.[31] Pro's is just not responsive to any of my explanation of the solvency of my counter plan. He barely introduces any doubt, and what doubt he does introduce is rarely supported. Back over to Pro. 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://cnn.it... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://cnb.cx... 25. http://cnb.cx... 26. http://usat.ly... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://bit.ly... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://1.usa.gov...

Privatizing social security Social Security allows retirees to draw on own investments.

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized “Privatizing RIB ..collapse due to stock market options.” Not what I stated. I pointed to historical down turns where individuals took a loss; Individual Plans (IP) will have the same risks. The government would most likely (safe guard) .. create a war chest.. to withstand an economic downturn.” Most likely? The gov has control over the market? I have yet to see any safe guards in plans presented by you; fallacy. These “institutes” will ensure against losses? How would a war chest be funded,what’s the cost to the consumer? The FDIC was insolvent in the 80’s. "..bubbles..These recovery stages we can see that this isn't as bad as my opponent's wants us to believe.” Black Monday:Total -36.7%, S&L crisis: FSLIC (FDIC) insolvent, 124B in bailouts. Dot.com: Nasdaq composite -78%, 2008 crash: S&P 500 Index -37% for the yr. Seniors lost on ave. 20%. When losses are high 2.9%/1.4% growth does little to recoup losses. The money is gone. It takes yrs to get back to the pre-crash balance; no equity on losses are being built. Retirees or soon to retire were hard hit [32,33,34,35]. Example: I lost 22% of my 401K in 2008 (like others). Not until last yr did I return to the pre-2008 crash level; minus new contributions. That’s 7 yrs of recouping losses. Not a quick recovery or a small $s. At 19 you have not lived through all these ups and downs with repetitive recuperation periods. It’s a significant loss over a working lifetime; stop drinking the cool-aid, it isn’t a non-issue. SS RIB is a safety net for many; privatization will pull the rug out. For 35 yrs the financial ind. has repeatedly gut our economy. It started with Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, partly responsible of the S&L crisis[47], 1989 &1993 exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation, (hidden in 401ks) and the lifting of Glass-Steagall, allowing for sub-prime lending and bailouts. It appears that the tax payer loose on one end and pay from the other. Privatizing SS in light of past events is far too risky[36,37]. I fully understand the transition period. If IPs were started this year 2016, all new to the workforce, would fall into IPs. All those who began working in 2015 would fall under the old SS system along with others previously working, which accounts for the 75yr transition. But, “Under the system as now constituted, each generation largely pays for the benefits of the preceding generation. Under an individual account system, each generation pays for its own benefits. During the transition from defined benefit to individual account, there will inevitably be a transition generation that must pay for both the preceding generation’s benefits and its own.”….. individual accounts places the burden of the Social Security liabilities of two generations on one. Like many federal liabilities, this one can be passed down to future generations through borrowing, but the sheer magnitude of the additional government debt that must be issued (10T), on top of an already rapidly growing national debt, has further complicated consideration of such proposals [14 p29]. See R1 & 2 regarding the structuring of transition and cost to the individual upon IP implementation. Allocate funds from SS for transition costs? Your objection to the gov’s hand in the cookie jar? Increase national debt? If an IP plan is implimented, SS tax must be raised to support existing liabilities and to support IPs. The Bush plan stated only 2% of tax would be put into IPs. What senior citizen’s comfort could be had with a 2% contribution rate, along with economic swings, recoup lags, and increased tax. Don’t forget those IP admin fees; [14]; net loss. 1: SS Crash/Solvency Gradually increase the retirement age to 68 by 2050. Change the benefit formula which will slow future benefit growth, specifically for those with high incomes. Increase the taxable max from $168,000 to $190,000. Recoup the 10% not presently paying into SS; some state and municipal workers. Tax reform: reduce loop holes. Use CPI as a measure for COLA and tax SS benefits for high income retirees [38 p.29,49,50-52, 39]. If these reforms are instituted SS will be again self perpetuating into the future. “The gov continuously takes funds from SS and it would be easy to help use these funds instead of allocation for other projects, but to help in privatization.” If you raid SS to fund privatization where’s the money for liabilities? The government has to issue bonds to cover the debt, creating more debt. Using SS to pay off the national debt? More cool-aid economics. 2: Privatization solves/ Woes “Housing crisis again, .. not regulated.”Deregulation was the cause! (above par 4) Glass-Steagall re-instatement failed in 2010 & 2013-14[40, 41]; it’s just talking points in the Presidential campaign. "Trickle-down economics” A.K.A voodoo econ, has gotten the middle class where it is today, in decline. What happens when large amounts of capital is available? The Dot.com bubble: risky inv. were made and overvaluation of stocks resulted [4, 5]. It’s not likely significant assets will be purchased. Often when money is available stock buy backs result, that also inflates stock values and line the pockets of CEO’s; fall in markets are inevitable for correction[42,43]. Small businesses, the biggest employers [48], don’t issue stock, they are privately held. Big business does little in asset development in the US. It invests overseas where labor and building is cheaper. Our IP money will fly over the pond, not create jobs here [44]. “stock holders will hang on to the stocks all day long.”I haven’t assumed or alluded to such a thing. My contender has not addressed how the IPs will be structured. Who will have influence on options available? Will it be a centralized gov unit or a free for all for Financial Institutions to make profits in fees? "Profit andLoss limit in order to prevent huge losses and maintain maximum growth” Most Americans’ experience with the stock market is through their 401Ks, not actual trading. The general population is not educated on how the stock market works; a liability when planning retirement [14,46]. Also, would P&L limit be an option in an IP? 401ks don’t have it. ”.. ability to be able to inherit your RIB if you die.”As stated before, inherit what! 2% over 30yrs =$11,725, if you’re paying for both sides; your IP and liabilities, as well as exposure to market swings & fees? Inheritance taxes? $255 is a death benefit not supplemental income. Widows over 60 and minor kids get survivor’s benefits if they are income eligible [45]. The World Bank can’t determine the impact of the Chili’s AFP’s on the economy due to macro-economic policies put in place at the same time. 3% of AFPs goes to DI and survivor’s ins. Plus, the fund’s admin fee of 2.5% for ea. monthly contribution. Also, 3.5-4% fee for withdrawal of annuities. The fee burden is 25% of contributions. AFP consortia’s’ profits are 27%. The cost to the Chilean gov in outlays and maint. is 6%/GDP. Three of the AFPs “effectively make decisions over investment resources representing 50% of Chile’s GDP;” reducing the states’ ability to regulate its own economy. US Actuaries conclude a min of 4-5 % RoR is required over long term to meet retirement needs, but in actuality are 2-3%. 50% participating in AFP are not saving enough and will not be eligible for a min. pension; leaving them destitute. The so called booming Chilean economy is on who’s back [46,28]. 32. http://tinyurl.com... 33. http://tinyurl.com... 34. http://tinyurl.com... 35. http://tinyurl.com... 36. http://tinyurl.com... 37. http://tinyurl.com... 38. http://tinyurl.com... 39. http://tinyurl.com... 40. http://tinyurl.com... 41. http://tinyurl.com... 42. http://tinyurl.com... 43. http://tinyurl.com... 44. http://tinyurl.com... 45. http://tinyurl.com... 46. http://tinyurl.com... 47. http://tinyurl.com... 48. http://tinyurl.com...

Privatizing social security Privatization threatens disabled worker/family protections

Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. "LETTER: We should privatize Social Security." Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: "Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in."

Privatizing social security Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely

Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation. Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be.

Privatizing social security Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.

Privatizing social security Advocates of privatization overestimate performance of accounts.

Privatizing social security Privatization does not address long-term funding challenges.

Privatizing social security Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.

Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security. Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts."

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...

Privatizing social security Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.

Privatizing social security Private social security accounts are voluntary.

Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "REASON #8: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WOULD REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—147 million in 1997. Many workers’ accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. [...] the government would need to hire ten thousand highly trained workers just to oversee the accounts and answer questions from workers. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 percent of annual revenues."

Privatizing social security Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places

Privatizing social security Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security.

Historical evidence has shown that privatisation has been unsuccessful In Chile and the United Kingdom, the governments persuaded people to make personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, and supporters of privatisation say that these are examples for United States to follow however the experiences in those countries were unsatisfactory and they provide strong arguments against privatisation.World Bank's report expressed dissatisfaction with privatisation in Chile. The report said "More than half of all workers are excluded from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.[[Indermit S. Gil, Truman Packard, and Juan Yermo, Keeping the Promise of Old Age Income Security in Latin America (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,2004), p. 10, http://wbln1018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/146EBBA3371508E785256CBB005C29B4?Opendocument%5D%5D Other evidences have also supported the claim that privatisation was unsuccessful in Chile.For example,investment accounts of retirees were much smaller than originally predicted and 41 percent of those who should have collected pensions continued to work.[[Stephen J. Kay and Milko Matijascic, Social Security at the Crossroads:Toward Effective Pension Reform in Latin America,unpublished paper prepared for the Latin America Studies Association XXVI International Conference, Las Vegas,October 6–8, 2004]].In the United Kingdom, the results of privatisation were no better.The workers were made to divert payroll taxes to personal investment accounts in 1978, however people made poor investment choices. As a result the national government suffered new administrative expenses, lost tax revenues,and had to bail out some failed private pension plans. A British government commission headed by Adair Turner reported in 2004 that Britain had been living in “a fool’s paradise” by thinking it had solved its pension problems.[[Financial Times, November 18, 2004]].Evidence shows that privatising pensions is not a good option.

senior citizens should not and cannot be exposed to such naked risk on moral grounds The protection of elderly citizens is highly valued by side opposition. However, genuine security for those at need is only achieved, sustainably, through our model. We respectfully disagree with the patronizing attitude of the opposition towards citizens; senior citizens are not necessarily senile and while were not all bankers we are able, We stand by the core principle of liberal democracies: we are capable of making the best possible decisions for ourselves. Unlike the opposition we welcome the fact that this motion promotes individual responsibility. There are limits to what governments can do. The crippling fiscal burden of supporting state pensions for everyone drastically reduces governments' ability to focus on and provide for those who fall below the poverty lines and are truly in need of help.[[http://247wallst.com/2010/05/20/state-pensions-face-1-trillion-shortfall/]] By encouraging individuals to pursue private pensions by more efficient private producers and actually take control of their pension,like they do with their income, the government can focus on the minority that falls through the system. Public pensions are not risk-free. As they are unsustainable we have explained governments resort to increases in the retirement age and extensive taxes, José Piñera "[However,] since the raising of both the retirement age and payroll taxes has an upper limit, sooner or later the system has to reduce the promised benefits, a telltale sign of a bankrupt system" the final result for the retired worker is the same: anguish in old age created, paradoxically, by the inherent insecurity of the "social security'' system. [[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html]]. While individuals can sue a private company for their withheld pensions or have the ombudsman intervene for them. Claiming your lost benefits from the government is a much trickier endeavor that makes it much riskier that a private but well regulated option.

Privatizing social security Privatizing Social Security negatively impacts women

Social Security I will begin my arguments now. ArgumentsI will separate my arguments into two parts: Criticisms and Alternatives. CriticismsFirst, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. As a result, those with a higher income pay a lower percentage of what they make, and there is no tax on unearned income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, benefits are about three times higher than taxes than it is for those in the top 5th. In a sense, Social Security is a regressive tax. Survivor benefits actually accelerate the pre-existing issues because they are denied to single individuals, including widows married for fewer than 9 months, divorced widows married fewer than 10 years, and same-sex couples, unless they are legally married. For unmarried individuals and minorities tend to be less wealthy, the system is less beneficial to them than it is for those who hold more wealth. The second issue is that Social Security, like all other forms of welfare, is essentially a Ponzi Scheme. While it is a separate tax in a paycheck stub, the money you pay in taxes toward Social Security is not treated as a separate tax; rather, the money you pay is included in regular tax revenue by the IRS. That money is later used to pay for the benefits to those who are retired today. When a payer retires, they will rely on the next generation of workers to pay the taxes that will finance their benefits. This is how a Ponzi Scheme works: it “generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop. ”The 2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees shows that in 2010, 54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. Out of those who were receiving said benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million were receiving disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million people receiving Social Security benefits and 158 million workers paying for it. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and federal expenses were $712.5 billion. That is an increase in federal tax assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected (although without 100% certainty) to be adequate to cover the next 10 years of Social Security benefits. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover the expenditures required to pay for Social Security. Natural shifts in the demographics put a strain on the system. “[T]he ratio of potential retirees to workers will be 37% — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. … In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action. ” AlternativesThere are many alternatives to the system of Social Security. For example, a private pension plan. A pension plan is similar to Social Security but is also different. When one opens a private pension, they pay money into it and it accumulates into reserves. Those reserves are eventually paid back to the individual in full. Essentially, they cannot touch that money until they need it. Social Security, on the other hand, is not even a fund. One pays into it when they start their first job, and they continue to pay it. Once they reach the cap and once they reach the retirement age, they are paid money each month by the government, though it is not from a fund. It is just cash. The former system works better and is a fairer system because it does not hand out money and does not require new payer to pay for old payers like a Ponzi Scheme does. Besides that, there is also money saving. It is obvious that pension plans are already sufficient, so even if one did not use a pension plan, there are savings accounts. One must choose not to touch that money, and if they touch it for unnecessary purchases, it is their own fault. In addition, individuals are presented with a multitude of private investment opportunities, which allow them to not only save their money, but to accumulate interest on the money that they do not touch and then make more of it. ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have provided sufficient evidence that a) Social Security is a poor system, and b) It can be replaced by other means to create a far superior system of retirement savings and financial security. Sources [1] Social Security Administration, “Contribution And Benefit Base,” last modified 2016, . https://www.ssa.gov....[2] Congressional Budget Office, “Is Social Security Progressive? ” Economic Budget and Issue Brief, . https://www.cbo.gov....[3] . http://www.investopedia.com...[4] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[5] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[6] Brooke Oberwetter, “Social Security: Bad for the Democrats,” last modified June 13, 2005, . http://reason.com....[7] John Wihbey, “2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees,” last modified June 9, 2011, . http://journalistsresource.org....[8] Securities Exchange Commission, “Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation,” . http://www.sec.gov....[9] Geithner, Timothy, F. ; et al. , “2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal and Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,” US Government. *For the most part, I am citing my sources according to the Chicago Manual of Style

Privatizing social security Social security taxes damage ability of poor to survive.

Privatizing social security Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization

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.

Abolish Social Security The first problem that needs to be addressed about your arguments is the fact that you used a universally unreliable source, Wikipedia. The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study of the accuracy of Wikipedia. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was 162. Members of Wikipedia can't create "information pages" where, they can list references, but they can also be edited. Thus, anyone can make up a false "fact". For debate's sake, I will accept your information as reliable. The opposition stated some Americans are stupid and if left to their own devices, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Let me just say that with the social security system continuing on, people would still end up on the streets after retirement because the current workforce cannot sustain the retirement population! People who are in that situation today blame the social security system, but if left up to their own devices, they have no one to blame but themselves. This would encourage American citizens to work so they can earn money to invest in their retirement. Social security was not started to get people off the streets as you stated. It was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 to get people working and out of the Great Depression, so that is completely erroneous. You stated that while more people will be retiring than employing that I have to take into account that I am referring to the baby boom generation(which I was not) where fewer babies were born. If you had researched and gotten information from a reliable source, the baby boom generation was when there was a dramatic increase in the number of births from 1946 to 1964. Once again, you are completely wrong. I would like to rebuttal the argument where you stated that the Social Security system is sound, but the problem is the people. This is in every way possible, untrue. Social security is built on people, it is sustained by people, and it is broken down by people. Without the people in the social security system, it would be completely corrupt. The Social security system is the problem. It is in a multi-million dollar deficit and counting. It cannot guarantee that people of the future will be able to even have a penny of the retirement money that they are supposedly going to acquire later on. You said that people retire early with the system still in place and people would complain, so shouldn't the social security system be abolished? Ultimately contradicting your standing point in this argument. Once again, you stated a rather false fact from none other but, Wikipedia. Social security IS mandatory. There is no working American citizen that isn't pay a part of their income to the social security system. You might have misunderstood because illegal immigrants don't have to pay social security because well, they sneaked into our country. They way Social security works is that based on your income you pay a tax rate of 7 to 15 percent that goes to the Social security system. This then goes into the form of a beneficiary check and gets sent to a retiree. The excess dollars that are put into the U. S government bonds then goes to the U. S treasury to pay of the deficit they are currently in! Again, it's a multi-million dollar debt. Of course the system can't be fixed, therefore it is flawed and should be abolish as soon as possible. There will be no way that the Social security system will work in the future because the retirement population is simply too large and the workforce is too small. You're right people do retire early, but what can you or the system do about it? Nothing, so you just proved my point further. SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED. The Social security system has taken into consideration that the amount of money that goes out to the beneficiaries is too much so they have tried changing the tax rate 73 times. And yet, the system is still crippling! That's 73 times that the Social security has prove detrimental to our society. True, some people would spend the extra 20,000 dollars due to no Social Security, but where would that money be put into? The American economy! With the current economic crisis, America needs every dollar it can get, so ending social Security would be beneficial for our nation. The people who did not save for their retirement could complain, but if they take legal action all it takes would be one phrase to prove them wrong. You had the money, you had the chance to save, but you didn't-so good luck buddy. I advocate my fellow debaters to vote in affirmation of this debate because the above statements made should prove that Social security is detrimental to our American society and with it's dismantlement, we could improve our American economy. Thank you for the good arguments.