[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit The first half of this statement doesn't make sense to me, but I can't determine if that is a result of poor logic or merely poor sentence structure.

My point is that, if nothing else changed and only SS was eliminated you would have a massive increase in welfare payments. Even with the government allowing for voluntary savings, many people wouldn't save anything.

You also have to consider the current situation in its proper context. Workers have no choice but to pay into the system all of their lives, while being promised that they will eventually be repaid an adequate amount of money to retire on. Since they must give up this portion of their paycheck, they might as well depend on its returns. If this system did not exist, and if everybody were responsible for their own financial security, people would have the necessary incentive to save for a time when they are no longer able to work (because they can't depend on getting a chunk my paycheck)

I agree that in a perfest world. if there was still a SS program you would be able to collect dividends (or something like that). But I'm just talking about SS as it exists or the typical politician plan to eliminate it.
People may have a necessary incentive but it would require a more gradual approach to keep from hurting a lot of people. Like it or not, the people apout to collect SS have been promised ALL of their lives "pay into this and we WILL allow you to collect" and now they are seeing "oh well, too bad you lose".

Since this is a discussion of normative political theory- welfare wouldn't exist. It contradicts with the "ownership society" idea that is being pushed. This makes a moot point out of the claim that abolishing Social Security would result in higher net taxes due to increases in welfare payments.

For the sake of discussion you are correct, but it is difficult to single out a big part of a much bigger whole and not include the other parts affected by changing it. If you focus on removing SS welfare WILL increase, people WILL have been told one thing and handed another and so on. It's too easy to say "we should eliminate this" and ignore the ripples from that decision. If you want to change X how will you address Y and Z, which are also affected by this change?

Benefiting-through-destruction-type claims are always a sign of bad economic reasoning. It's similar to the people who said that the tsunami would result in an overall benefit for Southern Asia's economy.

Apples and oranges. Pick an example that doesn't include so much death, OK? I don't advocate a depression but note that when people DID live through that time they were a LOT more frugal and self-reliant than now. A change in SS may work for that generation (too late now) but the current generations have LIVED through what we have in place now and a drastic change right now would be more of a blow.
Besides, I don't trust ANY grand plans from George Bush. I would not appreciate being the scapegoat for this and have lived all my working life paying for something I will never get. Also, I just don't like being lied to.