Social Security Restructuring (Part I)the_lanceMarch 14 2005, 18:48:47 UTC
Social Security restructuring is going to happen in my lifetime, the necessity of it not even doubted by hardcore backers. By all estimates, Social Security will not have enough money to pay me any sort of "living wage" by the time I am old enough to not work. I don't look forward to retiring six to seven years later than my grandfather thanks to scheduled age increases in Social Security either. Democrats can't even deny that it doesn't need reform because they were the one's proposing it in the late 90's. Both sides are playing political handball and it makes the legitimate issue at hand disappear in the political fog.
So ultimately, does Social Security need some sort of reform in the next decade or two? Absolutely! I can't see how my opponent could legitimately argue against that without sticking their head in the sand so I will argue what needs to happen and give my opponent a little framing advantage.
1. The Need for Social Security: Social Security should be a safety net. It should eventually be a Welfare type program, something so that seniors and the disabled don't have to die on the streets, can live but not in extraordinary comfort. That means that you have to qualify for it just like any other government assistance program. That means if you have a consistent flow of money coming in from a pension, retirement or investments, and it meets the minimum requirements, then you don't need social security. It will be livable though there will be incentive to stay off.
2. The Need for Government Run Pension: I don't really see a need for myself but a lot of people want the option to invest their accounts with the US or state pension plans. We can make this a voluntary deduction off your W-2. The thing about a pension is that you have ownership of that account and that it would probably be a pretty popular thing, even with the middle class, as a sort of government protected investment or for those who work without a pension or retirement plan (think small businesses).
So ultimately, does Social Security need some sort of reform in the next decade or two? Absolutely! I can't see how my opponent could legitimately argue against that without sticking their head in the sand so I will argue what needs to happen and give my opponent a little framing advantage.
1. The Need for Social Security: Social Security should be a safety net. It should eventually be a Welfare type program, something so that seniors and the disabled don't have to die on the streets, can live but not in extraordinary comfort. That means that you have to qualify for it just like any other government assistance program. That means if you have a consistent flow of money coming in from a pension, retirement or investments, and it meets the minimum requirements, then you don't need social security. It will be livable though there will be incentive to stay off.
2. The Need for Government Run Pension: I don't really see a need for myself but a lot of people want the option to invest their accounts with the US or state pension plans. We can make this a voluntary deduction off your W-2. The thing about a pension is that you have ownership of that account and that it would probably be a pretty popular thing, even with the middle class, as a sort of government protected investment or for those who work without a pension or retirement plan (think small businesses).
Reply
Leave a comment