[LS]

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Why "go after" any taxable income at all? This debate is whether money that can, and will be, taxed in the future---merely based on a fact of baby boomers aging---will be sufficient to pay for baby boomer debts (more or less).

I'm not saying these guys aren't credible. But surely you've heard the old nostrum that if you put 100 economists in a line they would hever come to a conclusion. I've been to plenty of conferences where very bright people come to totally opposite conclusions about numbers (which seems impossible).

Anyway, I think the money will be there. More than enough. Moreover, I think any projections more than five years out are no more reliable than reading goat entrails.

[Reagan Renaissance]

Your points are based on a reasonable premise, Americans have eventually risen to the occassion of every adversity or in the end things have worked out. That being said, let me ask you if you believe that Social Security is based on a sound financial platform of savings, followed by investment, followed by the expectation of higher payouts. This is how capitalism actually works. And the flip side of the question, is SS based on a Ponzi or pyramid scheme where money that has been paid in is paid out immediately and that when current payers become beneficiaries that there will be new payers or fewer numbers of payers that are willing to pay substantially more to meet rapidly rising obligations.

Social Security has the structure of a pyramid scheme. It is facing a large wave of increased numbers of beneficiaries who are expected to be living longer and who will each be expecting inflation adjusted increases in their benefit payments. Those payments are going to be made by declining numbers of workers who are facing earnings ceilings imposed by the global reality of China and other cheap labor markets who will be increasingly competeing for wages with American workers.

The history of SS in about to be reversed. In the past, we had increasing numbers of workers (boomers) supporting retirees in a time of rising wages. If you accept the premise that SS is a Ponzi scheme, Ponzi schemes are unsustainable trends that will end. Even if you don't accept the premise that SS is a Ponzi scheme, the current economic trends in place make SS an unsustainable trend.

And finally, there is no Constitutional authorization for SS. SS is an unsustainable political reality. It is my contention that SS is going to end and there is no other reality possible. How it is going to end is a completely different question. There is a painless option available, but it will be politically difficult to sell to politicians in office who derive their power from manipulating this fraudelent scheme. Your skepticism is shared by many. There are substantial numbers of Americans who believe that we have muddled through in the past and those same people like you believe that we can probably muddle through again-these are the people who are not sure whether it is broke and if it ain't broke don't fix it for fear that anything done to make it better will inevitably make it worse.

If you look at the history of SS, each time the government has raised the tax rate or extended the income ceiling on which workers are taxed, it is actually an example of the failure of the program. The program has failed repeatedly, but each time politicians have been able to convince the public by making the program an even bigger fraud that we can keep the pyramid floating a little longer. This apparent success is an illusion and it is the illusion that makes chain letters possible and keeps them going. In the case of SS, there are now huge numbers of beneficiaries and huge numbers of people nearing retirement expecting to become beneficiaries who just want to keep the chain letter going long enough for them to get "their share" and after that let the rest of them figure out how to deal with the aftermath.

Government and politicians are good at claiming credit for something that seems to work or claiming credit for something that turned out well. The media in the US all favor the growth of government. But ask yourself is the government due any credit for anything or should all the credit that government claims for itself actually be given to the American people. It is my opinion that there is virtually nothing that government does that would not be done better by non-government means. And if there is something as important as my retirement income or health care, would I rather be in control of my own destiny or would I rather have government in control. There really is no choice between these alternatives. Democrats primarily and maybe some other politicians have made participation in SS mandatory, as in compulsory. Why do you suppose they did that? Do you really believe that America is a free country while politicians take over 12% of your current income so that they can control a major part of your retirement planning and income stream? Is that your idea if freedom? It certainly passes for some people's idea of security. And they are basing their opinion on the history of an unsustainable trend. Even the image of apparent security is an illusion if people would analyze what their retirements would be like if they were in control of the funds. SS is nothing more than a shell game and we have all been made the victims.

Add your name to the ping list and find out what real savings and investment can do for your expected retirement income stream and what it might look like if you had control of it.