wabmester
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,459
A good article by Scott Burns on the evils of Social Security here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/scottburns/columns/2004/stories/011304dnbusburns.49664.html
The article implicitly suggests an obvious solution to the problem: index retirement age to the average lifetime. If you're "lucky" enough to have an above-average lifespan, then your social security kicks in, otherwise keep working (or retire early on your own dollar).
Phase in the indexing so you don't upset those who are within a few years of retirement. Younger workers would eventually view social security as life insurance that pays if you don't die rather than an entitlement for working some number of years.
I'm 42, and I assign my social security benefits a present value of zero. So from my perspective, getting a benefit at say, age 72, that I believe SSI could provide without going bankrupt actually has more value than the bupkus I expect to get at 67.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/scottburns/columns/2004/stories/011304dnbusburns.49664.html
The article implicitly suggests an obvious solution to the problem: index retirement age to the average lifetime. If you're "lucky" enough to have an above-average lifespan, then your social security kicks in, otherwise keep working (or retire early on your own dollar).
Phase in the indexing so you don't upset those who are within a few years of retirement. Younger workers would eventually view social security as life insurance that pays if you don't die rather than an entitlement for working some number of years.
I'm 42, and I assign my social security benefits a present value of zero. So from my perspective, getting a benefit at say, age 72, that I believe SSI could provide without going bankrupt actually has more value than the bupkus I expect to get at 67.