Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Toddsterpatriot
That's not the problem. the problem is that we're seeing a growing percentage of "65 year olds" and a declining numbers of "25 year olds" whose wage taxes pay for the relatively swelling number of oldsters.

Studies by Kotilkoff and others have clearly shown that this cannot continue or well soon (within about this next generation) run out of having enough workers with income to pay the freight. Keep in mind there is declining employment in many industries overall and in many instances wage levels decline also. But regardless, one wage earner is not going to be able to pay for the entitlements of 2, 3, 4, etc. of the oldsters.

And we're getting very close to that tipping point. Also see my comments in #157 about the best solution from a tax system standpoint.

160 posted on 07/12/2006 8:26:14 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: pigdog
That's not the problem. the problem is that we're seeing a growing percentage of "65 year olds" and a declining numbers of "25 year olds" whose wage taxes pay for the relatively swelling number of oldsters.

If you, as a 25 year old, had to give your entire paycheck to your 65 year old father, that would certainly suck for you. If your father needed that money to survive and you only gave him half your paycheck, that would certainly suck for him. These transfers do not change your family net worth.

So saying the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare is larger than our net worth and therefore we are bankrupt is simply wrong. We're simply moving it from one person's control to another's.

162 posted on 07/12/2006 8:43:45 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson