Drew, I am not familiar with the process but I guess they need 14 out of 18 members to sign off before it can even get in front of congress. What do you think the likelihood of that happening is? Will it even resemble the same advice by the time they get enough yeses?
In my opinion, if this would have come out prior to the Nov 2nd elections, I think the dems would have done a lot better. I think a lot of the backlash landed on the dems due to deficit concerns.
4 comments:
Perhaps I am missing something here, but I don't feel simply changing some calculations and formulas is a true fix for Social Security. The problem is the system simply can't support itself, and it is based on negative returns. People would be better off with a 'mandatory savings' program. For example, take the exact same deduction from my pay, but put it into my 401k or some comparable INTEREST BEARING account. When I retire, that money is mine. Instead, it enters the 'system' and I actually lose money in the long run.
Having said that...it is a step in the right direction, and I am glad it is being addressed.
true, i wasn't specifically addressing the social security aspect of it. more broadly the need to tackle the deficit and i like the idea of simplifying the tax code by eliminating the incentives to load-up with debt. i don't think anyone on this blog expects to be getting a check from social security when we turn 65 (maybe it'll be 70 by then).
Agreed we desperately need to reduce our deficit and I am all for some changes to make that happen. Even if some drastic changes need to be made over the next 5 - 10 yrs count me in.
Leighton the problem with your suggestion (while I agree with it) is it takes away the wealth redistribution part of the equation.
Post a Comment