rosskolnikov
location: Far end of the Group W bench
listening to: The Tony Rice Unit
registered: 2005.05.24
posts: 1822
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
I don't know. The problem is pending insolvency, which isn't so much related to lack of tax collection
as it is the sheer size of the generation to retire. If the bottom line is that more has to be contributed
to support them, then it sucks for those of us in the younger generation. But what alternative? To me,
the most painless way is to raise the cap on withholding. I'm already accustomed to paying into
social security until July, so it seems to me that the easiest change to stomach would be raising the
maximum and keep on paying.I think you really can't privatize SS either. Although an interesting idea in theory, the reality is that too
many people aren't informed enough to make "the right" decisions. If the purpose of SS is to prevent
those people from becoming insolvent dependents on the state, then you have to assume that it exists
as a safety net, not as an investment alternative. What I think we are going to have to deal with is cutting benefits to the older generation who
consistently voted to not adequately fund its own future retirement. But cut too far and too many of
them will become indigent. The resulting societal costs and emergency health care costs might well
be greater than a tax increase today.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
R
rosskolnikov
(view)
I don't know. The problem is pending insolvency, which isn't so much related to lack of tax collection
as it is the sheer size of the generation to retire. If the bottom line is that more has to be contributed
to support them, then it sucks for those of us in the younger generation. But what alternative? To me,
the most painless way is to raise the cap on withholding. I'm already accustomed to paying into
social security until July, so it seems to me that the easiest change to stomach would be raising the
maximum and keep on paying.I think you really can't privatize SS either. Although an interesting idea in theory, the reality is that too
many people aren't informed enough to make "the right" decisions. If the purpose of SS is to prevent
those people from becoming insolvent dependents on the state, then you have to assume that it exists
as a safety net, not as an investment alternative. What I think we are going to have to deal with is cutting benefits to the older generation who
consistently voted to not adequately fund its own future retirement. But cut too far and too many of
them will become indigent. The resulting societal costs and emergency health care costs might well
be greater than a tax increase today.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
posted 2008.06.13
posted on June 13th 2008
R
rosskolnikov
location: Far end of the Group W bench
listening to: The Tony Rice Unit
registered: 2005.05.24
posts: 1822
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
-
and this is just the beginning... – Eugene on June 13th, 2008-
Re: and this is just the beginning... – rosskolnikov on June 13th, 2008-
Re: and this is just the beginning... – Eugene on June 13th, 2008
I guess our Aussie tax rates are slightly higher Gene – big@l on June 13th, 2008
-
-
