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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (10651)	3/29/2004 9:57:17 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I also very much doubt that social security will disappear by the time us, ahem, youngsters, retire. I do think that the higher income taxpayers will be largely cut off the rolls, or at least taxed fully on their benefits, at some point, but that is not the same as losing the system altogether. I think the retirement age will be pushed back still further than already planned. The "if present trends continue it'll be bankrupt by 2020" refrain is a familiar one that we have been hearing every few years now. That may be true, but present trends won't necessarily continue, benefits may be changed, and the baby boom (1946-1964) is followed by a baby bust, so when the system gets in trouble it really just needs life support (so to speak) until the baby bust years get added to the retiree mix. Right now the first baby busters are scheduled to retire in 2032 (age 67), which is only 12 years after the supposed insolvency will occur. From that point forward, fewer people will get added to the system for many years than will likely die off from the classes of 1946 to 1964. At that point the system will become progressively more solvent given the same level of taxation. It's hyperbole to just assume that there will be no benefits whatsoever at some point.