>It's not unsound when you see it as it is:
>a program that transfers wealth from one
>generation to the next.
I think that the whole concept of transferring wealth
"from one generation to the next" is a fundamentally
unsound and unfair policy. Just because the demographics
have changed, why should today's younger workers have
to face a much higher tax burden than previous
generations of workers?
As you have already pointed out, the first generation
of beneficiaries paid nothing into the system and
received full benefits. How is that fair?
>Privatization is just completing the theft.
Privatization is the first baby step towards
_preventing_ the theft. By definition, if the
assets are _owned_ by the beneficiary instead
of being pooled in a fraudulent "trust fund",
then the assets can't be stolen!
>Then why did Bush's commission say SS is in trouble
>in 2016, when that debt will start to be redeemed?
Because the dollars used to redeem the debt will
most likely be created out of thin air. Technically,
there will be no default. But the dollars probably
won't be worth very much.
>If SS can count on that more than $1 trillion in
>surpluses that the fed has borrowed, then it is
>self-sustaining for at least 40 years, and probably
>much longer.
Perhaps. But only if these assets are _independently_
invested and administered by an entity that has the
interests of the beneficiaries as their sole priority.
>>The level of income taxes (or estate taxes)
>>is supposed to have no bearing on the SS program.
>Exactly! And this is why using SS surpluses to
>justify cuts in income and estate taxes is so
>dishonest and irresponsible.
It wouldn't even be an issue if the SS assets were
independently invested and administered.
If long-term Treasury debt looked like a risky
investment, then the independent
administrator should be able to invest the money in
something else. Currently, the SS assets must (by law)
be 100% invested in special "non-marketable" Treasury debt.
Even if you thought that long-term Treasury debt _is_
a good investment, you shouldn't put _all_ of your
assets into it! That is a violation of any reasonable
long-term investment strategy which should include
diversification.
The fundamental problem is the dishonesty of the
federal government. I'm currently an advocate of tax cuts
(at all levels) because of this fundamental dishonesty.
If the government can't be trusted, why give them
any more of your hard-earned money?
I will only support tax increases if the government
fully admits to its past fraudulent behavior and implements
fundamental reforms. Until such time, I prefer tax cuts
regardless of the impact on the budget deficit.
Just my opinion... |
