[extropy-chat] Extropian Scorecard

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Nov 6, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>> congress has already been known to change the age at which one can
>> begin to  receivebenefits...
>
> Exactly. It's been creeping upward, and rightly so.


Not fast enough.  The payroll tax that covers this is already around 
15%, and that is independent of the normal income tax people pay on 
wages.  And the Social Security tax as a percentage of income has been 
steadily increasing over the years to cover the increasing shortfalls.

To keep this solvent, the minimum age does not need to be creeping 
upward, it needs to leap up to something like 75-78, and creep upward 
from there at a good pace.  Otherwise, even with the upward creep, the 
social security tax will have to move into the 20-30% range just to 
keep it solvent.  The problem is that no one wants to give up any 
social security benefits or increase the age they get theirs, except 
maybe younger people because they already know they won't be getting 
any.


This isn't a problem for people already at retirement age, but it is 
economically devastating for younger people.  The cumulative tax load 
keeps increasing to cover current entitlements such that younger 
generations find it increasingly difficult to accumulate savings.  At 
the same time, the system will not be solvent when they get to their 
nominal retirement age.  In essence, the current and soon-to-be retired 
generations are double dipping and leaving the younger generations with 
no social security and limited means to save for retirement on their 
own.  And younger people, especially Gen-X and younger, are keenly 
aware of this situation.

If it is not aggressively dealt with soon, this could turn into a kind 
of ugly inter-generational warfare thing.  Older generations do not 
want to stop the gravy train and do everything politically possible to 
actually increase it where they can, and younger generations know they 
are being very badly screwed on this.

j. andrew rogers