<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d9619367\x26blogName\x3dTalkingDonkeys\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://talkingdonkeys.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://talkingdonkeys.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3978450256514867916', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

On Social Security: Fun With Numbers

Good article on the Motley Fool Investment Site on Social Security -- They give a well written essay on the problem, and make a persuasive argument that privatization is not the solution. Here is an excerpt:

"This is a situation that promises to collapse – the math says so. The solution isn't privatization, which will create larger government programs, but rather in a final, honest discussion of what insurance is supposed to do. It protects against disaster.

For you wealthy retirees and near-retirees who believe that I'm suggesting that you're not going to get back what you paid in, BINGO. That's exactly what I am suggesting.

Social Security should return to its real function -- an insurance policy under which anyone whose average income or net assets are higher than some defined level would be ineligible. The timing and terms of this change could be phased in over time. Social Security was meant as a straight collectivist social program, and it would at least remain solvent as such. Such a recognition would be far superior to a situation where the government controls wide swaths of the stock market.

We could also change the definition of retirement age to recognize the longer life expectancy for Americans. But rather than simply name an arbitrary age, we could index it: The date on which you could begin to receive Social Security benefits would be set at, say, 11 years less than the average life expectancy.

Something has to give. We do not yet have a crisis in Social Security, but the math is very, very simple. If we believe as a society that the protection of the weakest is a noble pursuit, then we have to consider changes to the system that guarantee that we can offer such protection.

The only real excuse not to do this would be that we'd prefer not to deal with it, and just leave the job of cleaning it up to our children."
« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

» Post a Comment Permalink