And some have tried...and were demonized (FAIR Tax, GWB, Ryan). Our entire future is about the demographics with the way we fund things. And since people will be living longer, I don't think its going to eb in the next 20 years, maybe in 100 years. Whatever we do, I think we should do away with FICA taxes and acting like these are separate program funding by this separate tax. Either just have one income tax or move this and healthcare to a VAT/consumption tax and that money truly does stand alone.

I used to feel this way but life happened. Number one, my own 401/IRA has not grow like we all thought, I didn't get serious about saving till my early 30s, now I am 53 (20 years of saving close the max) and am trying to catch up due to the lack of return. Two, even with the deficits of SSI and if they cut benefits to balance the program you would still end up with about 70% of what is promised...so, we are planning on that portion being there and will need it to have a nice retirement life style.

I think we should have it, I just think the funding source is wrong and due to demographics cannot work anymore. So until they can do something that will work, we should increase the age ahead of what was planned to buy some more time.

Because it is so far removed from reality, that's why.

No first responder is *ever* going to let you or anyone else just lie there and die. No physician is going to not provide medical care and let you die.

You going to ride around with a big sign that says "Do not provide medical care in case of an emergency?" How would anyone determine whether it was the lack of helmet or something else? "Oops, now that we've got him on the operating table, we can see that he died because he wasn't wearing his helmet. NEXT!"

That's just a stupid world you live in.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

And now that millenials outnumber baby boomers, what does that graph look like? All of a sudden we have a whole lot of young workers who will pay into the system as the boomers are retiring (or not, given the economy).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm not sure what this new verb means, but it's catchin' on and I'm diggin' it!

Pulled this from the SSI that sort of supports what I think your saying...looks like we will get a reprieve in 2038 but then it heads back up.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers' taxable earnings will grow from 13.7 percent in 2016 to roughly 17.0 percent in 2038, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2051. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 5.0 percent of GDP in 2016, and the Trustees project these costs will increase to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2037, decline to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2050, and thereafter rise slowly reaching 6.1 percent by 2091..

Your data also puts the lie to the myth that the baby boomers will be retiring in such vast numbers that the Social Security payouts will crush the economy. It really isn't so. Yes, an increase of 1% of GDP is a lot in absolute numbers, but really? We can't handle 6% of GDP, as compared to the current 5%, if nothing changes over the next 70+ years?

If we all agree (except Duffy, I guess) that Social Security is something that we want to provide as part of our ethical society, then we should agree to fund it in a reasonably fair manner (don't make those whose life expectancy is the shortest and who have likely worked the most physically demanding jobs wait ever longer for benefits; think about taxing capital instead of just (some) labor) and roll it into the general tax revenue.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I have insurance...that I pay for. I have a card that proves it.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb