SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (25696)1/22/2004 7:52:26 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793772
 
<<As a result, the government would have to find another source of revenue to pay current retirees. In practice, this means that the government would issue debt, putting the burden of repaying that debt onto future taxpayers.>>

Perhaps the folks who talk about transition costs assumed we'd actually pay for the transition rather than just adding to the debt. I realize now how silly that is...

Seriously, the problem with this that is not mentioned is that the debt would be paid by all taxpayers, not just workers. Not that that is an absolute barrier, only that we'd need to factor in that SS recipients and other non-workers would be among those paying.

<<My fear is that unless the stock market scenario plays out, the burden on future workers of meeting the cost promises already built into the system is too high to be affordable. To address this risk, I would like to schedule increases in the retirement age in the future, so that we have more people working and fewer people collecting benefits.>>

Even with a rosy scenario, there are many people who could never earn enough to save enough to provide for their retirement. The current system gives disproportionate benefits to them now. He would need more than raising the retirement age to pay for that.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext