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: TimF who wrote (362642)	12/16/2007 10:51:10 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586524

None of the adjustments that can cover the problem are slight. Sure they are. You use a combination of ajusting the tax rate slightly up, maybe 12 point. You boost the tax cap, which should probably go up with the increase in upper income anyway. Maybe make a slight adjustment in the retirement age. All incremental stuff and the 2040ish 'problem' is easily solved. You don't junk a hugely successful program. Its just that the cyclical issue of the baby boomers retirement comes up a lot faster than the non-cyclical demographic transition to an older population with more retirees per worker due to longer life spans (and to a much lesser degree due to a later average start of people's working career). It is 90% a cyclical issue. And there are those that are projecting life spans to decrease, due to child obesity and sedentary, computer monitor lifestyles. It's certainly not guaranteed that life span will increase. SS is a great program and with some slight adjustments it's financially sound. In fact I would bet that they would have to lower the taxes in your lifetime because of a surplus, if they act now.