* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > As Social Security became accepted in this country, its reach was > expanded to benefit people in more situations than simply retirees, > which has required increases in the payroll tax. The benefits this > expansion has
[Rest of rambling deleted] Which doesn't answer the question. It is amazing how you avoid the practical questions, Nick. The question was, is the system working okay now? Is it providing a humane level of support to the people who need it? If so, why do we need to continue increasing the cost cost of future social security payments faster than cost of living increases? > Lest anyone be confused, Social Security's net assets have *increased* > every year since 1982 and the longer-term trend certainly has been so (see > http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html). A totally meaningless figure. What matters is the discounted present value of what each generation pays into the system net of what they get out. If this number is negative, then current generations are foisting their consumption and debt off onto future generations. > This doesn't mean we can close our eyes to the future population > shifts, but it does mean that any hint that there is a present-day > crisis, rather than a far future one, surely must be regarded as > politically, not financially motivated. In the cliche of good Bullshit. There is a problem NOW, there is an opportunity to fix it now, and we should fix it now. Waiting twenty years with our head in the sand will only make it worse. Of course, it only makes it worse for future generations. No doubt that means little to you. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
