If the poster is Michael (and I haven’t seen proof of that), then what he really needs is writing lessons.
I braved the dark side and read the entire article, and it is pretty poorly done. I’m not sure it is even clear what, if any, argument is being made. The math is clearly wrong (like claiming that payroll tax is 2.9%). But more importantly, I can’t tell if the author had a recommendation or a point. It was like reading an encyclopedia entry, a mish-mash of facts and figures and some random 3rd-party statements.
Most interestingly, the article doesn’t really answer the title question.
I can see why someone wouldn’t want to post the 1st paragraph. It essentially says “different people pay different amounts and will collect different amounts based on how old they are”. Which doesn’t seem like much of a revelation.
Other important discoveries are that people are living longer, and medical costs are rising. Also young people won’t have much luck with collecting anything.
Never mind that one -- clearly it is MIchael, as I would have known if I had gone to the poster's home page.
and I am probably being too hard on the poster. I tend to grade writing pretty harshly. I wrote a column for a paper for 7 years, and I didn’t even like half of what I wrote. It is hard to meet deadlines and stay relevant.
He claims to be on his profile page.
Further, more than 90% of what he posts is from the same "author"...