Pass

Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized

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."

Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership

Thank you lannan13 for an invigorating debate.

The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo

privatize the USA's social security schemes

Private social security accounts are voluntary.

Privatizing social security

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."

Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.

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.

Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.

Privatizing social security

Social security is basically a giant ponzi scheme.

Privatizing social security

Social security is in crisis

Privatizing social security

Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries.

Privatizing social security

Public supports private social security accounts.

Privatizing social security

Thanks to lannan for engaging in this debate with me. It'll actually be my first time really arguing it (though I do agree with my position), so this should be interesting. I accept, and await his argument.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security

Privatizing social security

Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.

Privatizing social security

The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent

Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.

Privatizing social security

Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.

Privatizing social security

Privatization is the least bad option.

Privatizing social security

Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization

Privatizing social security

Conservatives want to destroy social security because it works.

Privatizing social security

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."

Privatizing social security helps the poor.

Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security.

Privatizing social security

Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.

Privatizing social security

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.

Privatization would represent a windfall for Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts.

Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.

I conceded the debate.

Privatising social security would improve economic growth

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."

Privatizing social security enables investment of savings

Social Security allows retirees to draw on own investments.

Privatizing social security

Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth

Privatizing social security helps the poor.

Privatizing social security

Privatization during economic crisis would have been disaster.

Privatizing social security

Privatization threatens disabled worker/family protections

Privatizing social security

Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.

Privatizing social security

Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.

Privatizing social security

Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy

Privatizing social security

Medicare shortfalls often conflated with Social Security

Privatizing social security

Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns

Privatizing social security

Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.

Privatizing social security

Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization

Privatizing social security

Privatising social security will harm retirees

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."

Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.

Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security.

Privatizing social security

Privatization does not address long-term funding challenges.

Privatizing social security

Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on

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."

Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.

Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.

Privatizing social security

"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."

Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.

Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36."

Public supports private social security accounts.

Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea

Pensions should be privatised

eggg

privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system

i don't know, but i'm down with the clowns and i'm out the window, F*CK

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.

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.

Social security should be privatized.

Privatizing social security enables investment of savings

Privatizing social security

dafuq

privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently

We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this.

Privatization of Government Policies

Advocates of privatization overestimate performance of accounts.

Privatizing social security

Social security taxes damage ability of poor to survive.

Privatizing social security

Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds.

Privatizing social security

Budget shortfall has more to do with misguided tax cuts, spending.

Privatizing social security

Privatization would not increase capital for investment.

Privatizing social security

Wouldn't it be better if we privatize CHUGGON?

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."

Privatization is the least bad option.

The Post Office is inefficient

Post Office Should Be Privatized

i thank you for ur recognition and congratulate you on your decision to concede breadfruit

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 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.

Privatising social security would improve economic growth

We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.

social security should b means tested against the rich

"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune: "The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes."

Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.

Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places

Privatizing social security

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.

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

"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.

Social security should be privatized.

competition between post offices would be unfair to the public

Post Office Should Be Privatized

Private accounts can be transferred within family

Privatizing social security

RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening argument, NO REBUTTAS! Third Round is for rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusions. No trolling. No semantics, the definitions provided will be the ones used in this debate. No counter-plansNo KritiksNo prophanity Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed. The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...) Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Privitize- to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise : (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Social Security- TheSocial Security program's benefits include retirement income, disability income, Medicareand Medicaid, and death and survivorship benefits. Social Security is one of the largest government programs in the world, paying out hundreds of billions of dollars per year. (. http://www.investopedia.com...)

instead of money send egg to feed family. also eggg high in protien and froot and vegatal

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."

Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.

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

I concede as con has clearly proven to be a better debater with better ideas, than I....

State involvement in pensions is deleterious to both pensioners and the state.

Pensions should be privatised

Opponents use twisted logic on Soc Sec surplus/deficit

Privatizing social security

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 harm retirees

Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth

Privatizing social security

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.

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."

Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth

i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.

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

extended.

Privatize Medicare

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 should be privatized.

The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public

Post Office Should Be Privatized

Fees on Soc Sec accounts diminish value of privatization

Privatizing social security

Government pension schemes are not a viable or sustainable option.

Pensions should be privatised

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

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...

Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely

Privatizing 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...