----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: > > >That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number > > >of workers per retirees > > > > Shirley, you can't be serious. > > ... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the number of > workers that mattered the reduction from 35 to 3 would have killed the > system instead of simply adjustments being made. The adjustments were not _that_ simple. The rate for employees/employers went from 2% until '50 to 14.4 percent after '90. And, the maximum income covered went from $3000 in '50 to $90000 in '05. (The $3000 in '50 is about $20000 in 2005 dollars.) That is not a minor change...especially since part of social security went to disability pay...and I'd bet that the the percentage of Americans unable to work due to disability has not gone up. > There is an argument to be made for raising the retirement age. Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. >From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 page 77 according to Acrobat. The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in life expectancy so far (the ratio of >65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it will be near 40%. http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf Dan M. Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
