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 : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: John Koligman who wrote (6147)2/17/2009 1:54:49 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
Together, these three adjustments—each desirable in itself—would eliminate the 75-year projected shortfall.

"Desirable in itself" is debatable. Which doesn't mean I wouldn't support any of the ideas, but the whole package isn't umitigated good all the way around like Ball seems to think.

Eliminating the projected shortfall isn't eliminating the real problem. Other mechanisms could also eliminate the shortfall as well, but this plan is designed to avoid pain only on the retirees. It just puts the pain on those paying for the program.

Well it might reduce the overall pain by - "Improve the return on Social Security funds by investing part of them in equities, as just about all other public and private pension plans do". I do support this general type of change, but its not without risk and problems. Imagine a lot of SS had moved to stocks at the peak of the tech bubble... Also increased federal ownership of private corporations is somewhat problematic.

As for "Dedicate future proceeds of a revised estate tax to Social Security beginning in 2010. Present law gradually reduces the estate tax so that by 2009, only estates above $3.5 million ($7 million per couple) will be taxed. The tax should be frozen at that level, with the revenues directed toward Social Security."

That's taking a general revenue tax and applying it to SS, you close a hole in SS, by opening up one in the rest of the budget, to the extent it increases revenue at all its a tax increase, not "desirable in itself".

We need to reduce the cost of SS and Medicare. Increasing the retirement age would be a good start.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News