Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: US employee pensions

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Resolved: United States corporations should honor all prior commitments to employee pensions.

Background and context

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Write Subquestion here...

[Add New]

Yes

Arguing that a "promise is a promise" is probably the best that pro can do. The pro will need to prepare a defense for instances the con can point to when honoring all prior commitments is simply impossible for a company. The pro's best strategy is probably to argue that one can't force a company to do the impossible. A company that goes bankrupt, for instance, may simply be unable to honor its prior commitments, especially when those commitments were based on optimistic assumptions about future earnings.

What the pro can probably do is present an case that advocates for companies setting aside each year sufficient funds to guarantee that they can meet their pension commitments, a fund that the company would not be permitted to touch and that, perhaps, would be insured by the government in much the same way that the government insures bank deposits.

[Add New]

No

The con's best strategy is probably to argue that the government should, in some cases, assume the burden of employee pensions especially in those cases where failure to do so would lead to mass unemployment.

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Write Subquestion here...

[Add New]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[Add New]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

See also:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.