You know, that might work... it might be a younger age than 35 to make it more reliable. Changes in SS are a hard sell, that's obvious.
re: However, if they don't forfeit any of the current SS benefits, then it makes sense for everyone to switch to my private account system.
Except there is no way to pay for it.
re: I'm not sure how to calculate the amount that everyone not retired is owed under the current system to determine how much net of SS assets, we'd have to raise for cover transition costs.
Me neither. If there was an either/or choice for those under 25 (because they are not earning high wages), then it might not hit SS revenue too bad. But I wonder what would happen as they moved into the higher earnings pool? Are we going to have a huge deficit to pay for the current 40 year olds?
You can see I'm trying to make this work, because I do agree with it in principle. But frankly, the current system works pretty well, it's cheap, and just needs some minor adjustment. When the echo boomers reach their prime earning years, SS could have a huge surplus, as it does now.
You think this is a platform item that could get people to not vote for the Dem/Rep coalition, and instead vote for the Citizens Party? Is it pragmatic or ideological?
John |
