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: i-node who wrote (224640)	3/17/2005 1:06:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571800

There is no simple solution because different people would expect and demand different conflicting things to consider the problem solved. It would only be "solved" in just about everyone's eyes if payouts could double right now and keep growing at an even faster rate while the SS tax went to a very low level (or disappeared entirely), and no SS deficit, or need to fund SS through general tax revenue ever occurred. Of course the combination of these things is simply impossible. To solve the problem you have to first decide what would be a solution, than you can try to decide how to achieve it. For me the solution would have to involve solving the projected shortfalls by containing costs, and avoiding further tax increases. Personal accounts (not really "private", at least not completely under Bush's proposal) would be a good idea but I could live without them if need be. I imagine Ted's or John's solution would focus more on maintaining benefit levels then and less on containing costs and taxes then mine. If you could raise the retirement age to 80 We would only have to raise it that high if the average post 65 life expectancy increases a lot. If that happens then people will be able to use the money at 80+ so the program would still be useful. Tim