Perhaps but it puts government in the investment banking business, for which is is manifestly unfit. So if you say we really should do away with this but then seniors will starve, you are running a welfare program whether you call it that or not. And if it is a welfare program, it should not be cutting Bill Gates a check, especially if it is running out of money. I don't think anyone who is playing golf in Boca Raton is relying on Social Security. I am not advocating penalizing the wealthy... I just don't see why the poor need to give them money.
On 9/7/05, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >why not? I'm sure I'm going to forfeit mine. > > It already *is* a wealth redistribution plan, from the poor to the > >affluent. The poor don't survive long enough to draw their money out. I'm > >simply advocating a more rational redistribution... > > > > On 9/7/05, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > No, the system today is a wealth redistribution program from the young to > the old. You can't blame wealthy people for living longer. The system was > initially designed as a saftey net for people who lived past the average > life expectancy. The government should not owe anyone twenty years of > subsidized golf and early bird specials in del Boca Vista. > > I'm going to forfeit my Social Security by default because at the current > rate there isn't going to be any money left in the system to fund it by the > time I can retire. > > We have some options for shoring up the system, though: > > 1. Raise the retirement age (full benefits) gradually over the next decade > to 75. > 2. Let in LOTS of young people from other countries. All those Mexicans > that want to come live and work here? Let them in! Let them have dual > citizenship. Then we leverage their voting power to overturn the socialist > mess of a government in Mexico, and we all retire to the Mexican Riviera. > ;-) > > The underlying age demographics have to change in this country in order > for us to get our SS benefits under the current system, and we're headed in > the wrong direction age-wise. > > 3. Means-testing for benefits (as you mentioned). I hate this idea. It > isn't a more rational system of distribution, it is a more socialist one. A > rational system would give you exactly what you put in, plus compounded > interest at the nominal rate of inflation over the life of your investment. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:173150 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
