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: SilentZ who wrote (215055)	1/15/2005 8:11:11 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1573922

Oops. :) Got it backwards. But you know what I meant...when you have a population like the Baby Boomers which exceed the following generation (Gen Xers), then the system becomes unsustainable. For example, here are some facts I pulled from the Census Bureau. By 2010, there will be 185M eligible workers (aged 20-64) supporting 40M retirees (aged 65 or greater). By 2030, there will be 197M eligible workers supporting 71M retirees. You can clearly see the bubble moving. Our eligible workforce will have only increased by 12M during a period of time when our retirees increased by 31M. Anyway, I think we both agree on that. I think what has exacerbated the problem is benefits tied to wage growth instead of inflation. census.gov

To: SilentZ who wrote (215055)	1/15/2005 11:35:36 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573922

What? It's the opposite. As long as the generation afterwards (the one paying the taxes) is smaller bigger than the one getting the benefits, it should work fine. It shouldn't matter one bit; not one iota. That it does is precisely what's wrong with the current SS system. The plan must be unaffected by such developments as baby booms, birth control or the legalization of abortions (or a return to outlawed abortions, should that occur). The point is that in a properly constructed, actuarily sound system, the payouts due future beneficiaries must be assured regardless of future developments. This is done by assuring that benefits are consistent with the amounts paid in for a given beneficiary, and by requiring that the full amount of such future payouts (discounted for future growth) be funded and recognized as a liability in the year the worker ACCRUES benefits, NOT when he RECEIVES them. The above paragraph states as concisely as one can make it what the problem with the SS system is. If you understand that paragraph, you will understand the problem.

To: SilentZ who wrote (215055)	1/16/2005 6:49:10 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573922

By the way, Z, more proof that the SS "trust fund" is a myth. Current calculations of the federal budget deficit do not account for the increase in debt due to the SS "trust fund" lending money back to the government. In other words, revenue from SS taxes is counted as part of the general revenue, and expenses from SS benefits are counted as part of the general expenditures. As a result, Clinton never balanced the budget, and Bush's deficit is actually close to $570B. Now you tell me whether SS is "just fine." Tenchusatsu