Civic2Scooby

http://www.bushin30years.org/view/ad.html?flash_id=87

:yay:

AcuraFanatic

You suck.

DVPGSR

Problem is Social Security is broken in its current model due to the fact it cannot support the baby boom generation without major changes to it. Things you can due to help fix Social Security are; raise payroll taxes on current workers, increase minimum retirement age, decrease benefits, privatize it. Problem is doing any of those things is unpopular with some large voting demographic with a special interest group or two.

qtiger

Uh, it supports the baby boomer just fine. Maybe you missed the whole "going backrupt in like, 2042" thing.

DVPGSR

The Baby Boom generation is people that were born from 1946 - 1964. That would mean that in 2041 when Social Security is supposed to be bankrupt the Baby Boomers would range in years from 77-95 years old. They are still a drain on the system at this point. However 2041 is when Social Security is bankrupt. In 2014 the current tax revenues will not be able to cover the current benefits due the retirees. The Baby Boomers would range in age from 50-68 years old and would be just entering into their Social Security benefits. Already their loss from the workforce and no longer putting money in but rather taking money out is a drain on Social Security. Then in 2029 the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted. Baby Boomers would range in ages from 65-83, be completely out of the work force and drawing Social Security benefits during their peak years.

So I would say that the current system cannot support the Baby Boom generation.

References:
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/socsec/socsec19jj.html
http://www.ssa.gov

qtiger

Average life expectancy for children born in 2003 is 77.6 years, and it is vastly lower for those born during the baby boom generation.


And by social security "going bankrupt" in 2042 I assume you mean "giving 70% of what the seniors should get"

DVPGSR

I agree life expectancy is lower, but to suggest that Social Security can cover the Baby Boomers without a problem is a falacy. And as for bankrupt that was your term and others, not mine. I merely pointed out that in order to support the Baby Boomers as well as future retirees in the current capacity there needs to be changes in the way we fund and/or pay out Social Security benefits. That is a reality that we cannot overlook.

qtiger

And what do you think of a capless flat tax, as the video proposes?


Perhaps if the government didn't spend "excess" social security taxes during economic booms, we wouldn't be in bad shape during economic downturns, eh?

DVPGSR

I am at work so I was not able to watch the video. However, I do support a federal sales tax to replace the federal income tax...although there is a whole slew of issues concerning the ties state income taxes have to the federal income tax.

Unfortunately I do not trust the government (run by Democrats, Republicans, or someone else) to not spend excess money. If there is one thing all politicians do well it is spend money. This is why I am in favor of partial privatization so that I can see at least part of my future retirement earnings in an account that I know is mine and the government cannot spend. Under the current system I am not anticipating any Social security benefits and am planning as if I am not going to get them. After all, I will be 65 in 2042.

qtiger

Currently social security tax is a flat tax paid up to 90,000 of personal income. Beyond that there is no tax. Removing the cap would pull in quite a bit of money.


And please, don't go all wack-job righty with the flat federal sales taxes. It would decimate the economy.