Apologies for using 'reform' when you indeed had clearly stated restructuring. Nonetheless, I still consider the level of restructuring you call for overkill.
There seems to be two extremes posited. On the one hand, we keep SS the way it is, in which case it collapses in 50 years. On the other hand, my opponent calls for drastic restructuring.
- Turning it into a safety net is exactly what I want to do. A safety net wouldn't require payroll taxes because it could be rolled into the income tax (a more progressive tax than the payroll tax that is currently capped at $90,000). It should be treated as a welfare system: requirement based, livable, a safety net, but not extremely comfortable. People should be encouraged to save and invest
He calls for transition to a needs-based system of distribution, similar to welfare. Well, welfare is precisely what it will be. Despite clinging to the name Social Security, it will in fact be a welfare system. Such an all-or-none divide fails to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that the working class has made towards to development of the country. That is why a pro-rated system is advantageous.
While I do agree with pro-rated payments to a certain level, how is this more fair to any generation? People like my grandparent's friends who had planned their retirements based on the supplement of social security are now going to get a significant chunk of their income taken away.
Who said significant? Only the very wealthy would face significant cuts, and even so such cuts would be relatively meaningless compared to the investment portfolios they would likely already have in place. Additionally, this is not going to be an instantaneous change. It would be slowly incorporated into the retirement arena. People with ten years until retirement would still receive SS payments near what they expect, perhaps reduced only slightly based on possible personal investment income they can earn in those ten years. Their contributions to SS funds will be reduced accordingly. Younger people will still be contributing to the SS fund as well, but in even lower amounts. This will maintain the fund so that those near retirement who expect full SS payments can be accommodated, while at the same time freeing up money for personal investment.
Re: Part 1 of 2the_lanceMarch 16 2005, 22:55:33 UTC
That is why a pro-rated system is advantageous.
What brings the assumption that a pro-rated pay wouldn't be part of the plan? I said welfare-like based on certain minimum requirements based on collection. Certainly a pro-rated plan would have that and would be the most logical (considering an all or nothing approach would leave those inbetweeners by the wayside, it makes absolute sense). As far as it is concerned, it isn't as glaring of omission as my opponent's "mystery plan" involves!
Who said significant?
You did. If you pro-rate people's retirements when they planned on having that supplement, you are taking away a certain amount of income that they had planned on. So if a person saved enough to live off of $1,000 a month plus a $800 Social security supplement, you would be taking away $800 based on the assumptions of a pro-rated system. Nowhere in your rebuttal did you specify what the transition procedure or the pro-rated system would entail. If you had specified it, maybe assumptions about the first insane plan you concocted wouldn't have been taken to the point.
People with ten years until retirement would still receive SS payments near what they expect, perhaps reduced only slightly based on possible personal investment income they can earn in those ten years. Their contributions to SS funds will be reduced accordingly. Younger people will still be contributing to the SS fund as well, but in even lower amounts. This will maintain the fund so that those near retirement who expect full SS payments can be accommodated, while at the same time freeing up money for personal investment.
How do you plan to reduce the amount of money principle earners are contributing to SS? Certainly you must mean sometime after that proposed ten year transition period! In the meantime, we are expecting monumental jumps in the number of people on Social Security. Payroll taxes will have to be increased and benefits will likely dwindle. Nobody is paying LESS anytime soon, but my plan makes it so more people will be paying less in a 20, 30 and 40 years because they won't be maintaining a poorly designed system.
There seems to be two extremes posited. On the one hand, we keep SS the way it is, in which case it collapses in 50 years. On the other hand, my opponent calls for drastic restructuring.
- Turning it into a safety net is exactly what I want to do. A safety net wouldn't require payroll taxes because it could be rolled into the income tax (a more progressive tax than the payroll tax that is currently capped at $90,000). It should be treated as a welfare system: requirement based, livable, a safety net, but not extremely comfortable. People should be encouraged to save and invest
He calls for transition to a needs-based system of distribution, similar to welfare. Well, welfare is precisely what it will be. Despite clinging to the name Social Security, it will in fact be a welfare system. Such an all-or-none divide fails to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that the working class has made towards to development of the country. That is why a pro-rated system is advantageous.
While I do agree with pro-rated payments to a certain level, how is this more fair to any generation? People like my grandparent's friends who had planned their retirements based on the supplement of social security are now going to get a significant chunk of their income taken away.
Who said significant? Only the very wealthy would face significant cuts, and even so such cuts would be relatively meaningless compared to the investment portfolios they would likely already have in place. Additionally, this is not going to be an instantaneous change. It would be slowly incorporated into the retirement arena. People with ten years until retirement would still receive SS payments near what they expect, perhaps reduced only slightly based on possible personal investment income they can earn in those ten years. Their contributions to SS funds will be reduced accordingly. Younger people will still be contributing to the SS fund as well, but in even lower amounts. This will maintain the fund so that those near retirement who expect full SS payments can be accommodated, while at the same time freeing up money for personal investment.
Reply
What brings the assumption that a pro-rated pay wouldn't be part of the plan? I said welfare-like based on certain minimum requirements based on collection. Certainly a pro-rated plan would have that and would be the most logical (considering an all or nothing approach would leave those inbetweeners by the wayside, it makes absolute sense). As far as it is concerned, it isn't as glaring of omission as my opponent's "mystery plan" involves!
Who said significant?
You did. If you pro-rate people's retirements when they planned on having that supplement, you are taking away a certain amount of income that they had planned on. So if a person saved enough to live off of $1,000 a month plus a $800 Social security supplement, you would be taking away $800 based on the assumptions of a pro-rated system. Nowhere in your rebuttal did you specify what the transition procedure or the pro-rated system would entail. If you had specified it, maybe assumptions about the first insane plan you concocted wouldn't have been taken to the point.
People with ten years until retirement would still receive SS payments near what they expect, perhaps reduced only slightly based on possible personal investment income they can earn in those ten years. Their contributions to SS funds will be reduced accordingly. Younger people will still be contributing to the SS fund as well, but in even lower amounts. This will maintain the fund so that those near retirement who expect full SS payments can be accommodated, while at the same time freeing up money for personal investment.
How do you plan to reduce the amount of money principle earners are contributing to SS? Certainly you must mean sometime after that proposed ten year transition period! In the meantime, we are expecting monumental jumps in the number of people on Social Security. Payroll taxes will have to be increased and benefits will likely dwindle. Nobody is paying LESS anytime soon, but my plan makes it so more people will be paying less in a 20, 30 and 40 years because they won't be maintaining a poorly designed system.
Reply
Leave a comment