How would you fix Social Security?
Raise tax revenue, like Barack Obama, or decrease benefits, like Fred Thompson? It’s one or the other, so which would you choose?
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
From CNN.com: Only 36 percent of workers in 2004 participated in 401(k)s and similar accounts when offered, [according to] the most recent data available What do people...From The Wall Street Journal: What's the matter with Social Security? The fundamental problem is demographic. In 1960, there were five workers for every Social Security beneficiary....Regarding Pyramid Schemes, the SEC's website has the following to say: ...despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use...Not just the sub-prime mortgage market, although that's a popular target: ...neither the direct effect of the subprime interest resets, nor the direct financial losses related...
November 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Or, let younger folks invest some of their money and cut spending elsewhere in the budget to cover any shortfall in social security.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Option 1 may increase benefits, but would do nothing to cover the shortfall unless you gave everyone less and hoped the market made up the difference. You’d probably still have to raise taxes, though to accomplish this one, because privatized accounts are owned by the individual - when death comes knocking the beneficiary is no longer the federal government.
Option 2 sounds like a great idea on paper - borrow money from useless government programs to cover the difference - practically speaking, though, I can’t envision a president or congress that’s powerful and disciplined enough to do that to a measurable extent. It would be great if it happened, but I can’t imagine it.