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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lino... who wrote (3331)	10/21/2000 2:36:39 AM
From: fuzzymath	Respond to of 10042

I don't have all the statistics at hand. I know it started out as a very small plan, during the 1930s Depression. It was a time when American families regularly had 4 or 5 or 8 kids, and when the cost of barely surviving (it was a "security" safety net) was low. As long as Americans had lots of children and the average person died at 65 (meaning that many people paid into the system but never got back a penny) Social Security stayed solvent. The Baby Boomers have it in wonderful surpluses now, but without a tax increase the funds will be entirely drained as Baby Boomers retire. That's the problem. Social Security is a transfer of money from today's young to today's old, and the demographics of 10 years from now will not support the promises the Government has made to the Baby Boomers. They can't get their money back if the system stays as it is now. Kevin/fuzzymath