|
Opinion #1
Debater: powerofk
|
|
Problem with SS
|
|
The problem with Social Security is that it is NO LONGER a guaranteed benefit. Those of us under the age of 35 have no guarantee that it will even be solvent by the time we retire. Right now, there are more people collecting Social Security checks than people paying in. And even those people receiving SS money are given a time-limit of how long they can receive (if they live longer, too bad for them). Also, SS enrollment did not become a requirement until the late '70s/early '80s. Now, if we are going to keep the system we have, we need to raise the SS tax or allow for privitization. Unfortunately, though, there is no easy answer...
|
|
|
|
Opinion #2
Debater: paraquat99
|
|
The "problems" with S.S. are short-term, shortsighted and exaggerated.
|
|
Although I pretty much classify myself as a liberal-Libertarian, I support the Social Security system as it stands. As such, I find it disturbing that people in their 20s and 30s today so easily buy the conservative movement's twenty-year perpetuated distortion that Social Security won't be there for them. The fact is 70% of the "Boomers" now starting to retire had at least 2 children. Those children as workers will thereby supplement roughly 2/3rds of the Boomers S.S. checks until they die off in 25-35 years. The other 1/3rd can be compensated for by: 1) Raising the age to collect S.S. to around 68 years old(the average life expectancy of Americans today is 75-80, much higher than it was in 1935 when S.S. started); 2) Raising the S.S. income cap and begin collecting S.S. from those now making six-figures; and lastly 3) Boosting the amount of S.S. payroll tax 1-2% from current workers and employers under generational sunset conditions. To privatize or phase-out S.S. is shortsighted.
|
|
|
