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

To: SeekAndFind

“In the meantime, you should have been eligible for SS but have to wait 5 more years to get it. Is that what Americans will have to look forward to from now on?”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they raise the age tomorrow. They are talking some 15-20 years out, by many tables and another year for shorter terms. That would correct the problem, by offering those under 40 to opt into a VOLUNTARY combination of public/private savings account. The public part would support the ongoing cost, the private (naturally) would yield higher dividends to pay them out in the out years.


8 posted on 09/16/2011 7:50:27 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: jessduntno

Under 40 can opt out.

Over 65 still collect.

50 - you get to keep paying, and never collect.

Got it. I vote no.


22 posted on 09/16/2011 8:13:05 AM PDT by patton (I am sure that I have done dumber things in my life, but at the moment, I am unable to recall them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: jessduntno

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they raise the age tomorrow.


I’m suggesting that aside from avoiding disruption to current and imminent retirees, the age should be floated annually to ensure ZERO BORROWING to pay SS benefits.

Delaying 15 years will simply kick the can (accumulate trillions in debt), and screw those who are paying in now, who have no hope of enjoying the same benefits of those they’re funding.


25 posted on 09/16/2011 8:20:49 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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