* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'll agree with Erik that the % of GDP going as payments to the > elderly should not increase. So, I'd go with a similar reduction in > the increase in benefits that was agreed to in '83, with no overall > increase in the projected taxes collected (although the tax could > be more progressive). I think that would definately get us within > the ball park of long term sustainability by 2050. If this were > accomplished by changing the indexing formula, as I have suggested, > after sustainability was achieved, we would then see SS as a % of GDP > slowly decrease after 2050....assuming roughly historical ecconomic > growth.
Nice summary, Dan. The plan you outline would be a huge improvement over what we have now. I'd definitely support something like it. I hope the shrill in the AARP and liberal media don't manage to scotch something like that if it is on the table. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
