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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (103970)	4/11/2000 7:04:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570552

Dear Jim: That ratio will be when the current twenty somethings start to retire. The "Baby Boomers" start retiring in 7 years (2007 - 1945 = 62). The ratio will be about 2 to 3 workers for each retiree. Congress delayed retirement for those born after about 1955 by two years. The BB's will stop retiring at about 2031 (2031 - 1964 = 67). Congress will have to fix it long before that. No matter what, the "Workers" have the final say. They do not "Have" to work. If they can not keep a decent lifestyle while working, then they will not work. This causes the economy to collapse and everyone will be P.O. at the government. Pete

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (103970)	4/11/2000 11:32:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570552

Jim, The day 51% of the population gets a government check in some way shape or form is the day that your "silent majority" thesis is invalid. That may have already happened... When the boomers start to retire there will be 1 worker for every 3 retirees...guess who will be the majority then? Good point. Another dangerous trend is this cutting taxes on the poor an middle class. Actually, not just cutting taxes, but eliminating their taxes completely, and giving money back in form of Earned Income Tax Credit. A lot of Republicans are guilty of this as well. It's not that I want to tax people. I think everyone should share the burden of maintaining the governemnt to some extend. Even if the actual amount of money is symbolic. When you have a majority of people with no financial stake in prudent spending of money, and a majority of people benefiting for imprudent policies, you have a recipe for disaster. We have smaller and smaller number of wealthy individuals paying the entire cost of the government. I don't think this experiment has been tried anywhere outside of third world countries. I think it is a dangerous course for a democratic country. Joe