* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > But, we do have to remember, that even with a 25% downward step > function in benefits paid in '45, the paid benefits at retirement will > still be 36% more than they all now.
But not the fair share of the people below 40. How is it fair for the boomers to pay in 4-5% of GDP and get out more than 6%, while the next generation pays in 5%, but only gets out 4.5%? > even less in payout with my suggestion than the step function. I > don't know your salary, of course, but given your education and > responsibilities, I'm guessing you are above the tradeoff point (which > I calculate at about 45k/year on the present salary).** I'm not arguing for myself. I'm saving about 40% of my after-tax income, so barring disability, I won't rely on Social Security to any extent. It would be nice to get back at least a fraction of what I paid in, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't even complain loudly if the benefits were not cut from current schedules for people over 50, even though they are clealry getting more than their fair share. But where I draw the line is at screwing the next generation(s) after me -- I'll pay more than my fair share now, but I am NOT going to screw the next generation. The system needs to be fixed NOW. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
