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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6087)	1/13/2017 8:22:29 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Bridge Player Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364328

Don't misunderstand: My wife and I (particularly HER) took care of my mom and both her parents through long and difficult times. And I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. But I was just making the point that the idea of SS was that each person was to be financially responsible for him/herself. The money that was put away in SS was destined to earn interest, and to form the basis of a kind of retirement supplement. Today, as my kids pay into the plan, none of that money is for them, it is out SS's door before it gets there -- paying benefits for current retirees. I think ten years from now the willingness to continuing paying SS tax is going to be reduced. I could be repeating here. But in early 80s, I read an article in the NY CPA Journal by a former chief actuary for SS. This was when the impending cash flow problems were looming large. And he explained why the program was in trouble, what some of the options were for replenishment, and then he closed with sort of a shocking comment, when he said words to the effect of, "By 2050, we might need a combined 40% tax rate to adequately fund the program and continue payments as projected." In retrospect he probably wasn't far off. Of course, I'm pretty sure 2050 isn't going to be my problem. But it did provide a sense of trajectory. In just over 100 years time -- the program would have ripped through all the trillions it has taken and will be left with nothing. Probably in what will, in 2050, amount to a single lifespan. I don't know how to make sense of such a program. When you're designing a retirement benefit, shouldn't it be assured of lasting more than a single lifetime before it is broke? I think it must or it really can't be considered of value to society.