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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Road Walker who wrote (485890)6/5/2009 4:13:57 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1574040
 
True. But what would it cost us in public assistance to the elderly, and in other 'social costs' of having many, many more indigent elderly people?

Public assistance to the elderly would go to those who need it rather than all elderly people.

In any case I'm not advocating getting rid of social security. The expectations, decisions, planning and structures of people and organizations across the country have been set up based on it being there. Whether it was a good idea or not in the first place, getting rid of it now would be too much of a distruption. I'm not saying "get rid of it", I'm just pointing out its real huge cost, and how the fact that there is a social security tax doesn't mean we can ignore or discount the cost.

Also I'm calling for reducing future increases in benefits so that the program will be (to use i-node's term) "actuarily stable", and generally affordable. If not more affordable than it is in terms of current year spending, at least more affordable than it will be if we don't change anything.
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