Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (72536)	1/18/2000 12:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, all I have to go on are the misc. bipartisan commissions that have looked into this matter. The concord coalition is one - then there was that Kerry group who came up with the same conclusions. Here is an excellent resource page on the issue (not as good as the CC though because there are no actual solutions offered but more explanation of the issues are there) socialsecurityreform.org Irrespective of where the the elderly demographic fits into the population as a whole, the fact is the SS system as it sits currently will cause serious economic turmoil unless it is reformed pretty soon - there doesn't seem to be any question about this. So then you have the issue as to how to reform it... increase taxes or cut benefits. We have already increased payroll taxes on the young to something like 50-100 times what the current seniors ever put into the system, and with total payroll taxes at about 45% in the high tax states like California I really don't see how payroll taxes can be raised much further. There are capital gains which can be taxed and probably should be - if there is a tax increase I would say it has to be on passive income. Then there are any benefit cuts which until now have been completely avoided and I can't see any reason for that - you would think that raising taxes so dramatically would have been accompanied by at least some form of cut - especially the retirement age which should have been raised to 72 imo, but no - nada - no sacrifices whatsoever have been asked from the recipients of these programs, so there you go. Now personally, based on what I see around me the seniors are living much better than the young - dramatically better, but I can't evaluate the entire country... however, it doesn't matter does it - something has to give... care to offer a solution? I think the first thing they should do is raise the retirement age to 72 - yesterday. Then work out a way for some of the young participants to invest a small portion of their own money so they at least get something out for their 9K/year "investment" - if we don't do this then the problem will just repeat itself. But we can't allow any private investment now because the ponzi scheme structure doesn't allow it really... every cent the young put in goes to pay the huge bubble of retirees coming - thats why the age needs to be raised to 72 (which will free up some $$). So thats my solution for now.