To add to peoples' retirement income, on the paternalist premise that they lack low-risk vehicles for savings, plus the need a push to use such vehicles if they are available.
She sees this as preferable to simply expanding Social Security; for why you should read her paper. Most people who consider it doubt SS benefits make for an adequate retirement, in and of themselves. Originally the idea was that SS was one of three pillars of retirement income, the others being employer-paid pensions and individual, personal saving. In recent years the other two pillars have withered, prompting TG's plan. > > I don't get it. Why would the SS program need augmentation? Its the funds in > the program that need "augmentation", no? I mean, do we augment the theory > of evolution by offering an Intelligent Design alternative? ;-) > > If the government continues (forever) to make payments to those who qualify > at current rates (adjusted for inflation), then is there a need for another > program? If the government cannot make these SS payments, then it needs to > raise taxes. > > --ravi > > -- > Support something better than yourself ;-) > PeTA => http://peta.org/ > Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ > If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
