Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
What am I missing here? I am agreeing that you can not slash benefits to people who are currently depending on that money and are on a fixed income. However, there is a sliding scale as to who will need to see any of that money. The younger you are, the longer you have to prepare for retirement. So, the new workforce isn't going to get anything, but they do have to pay into it for a short period of time. Over time, the program disappears because those receiving benefits...well, they die. Then, no one has to pay into it any more.
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------
Ooh, ooh! Let's tax all the liberals who supported the war on poverty, since that has been a complete debacle too. Oh, and then there's the war on drugs, let's tax everyone who supported that! Oh, and we could tax everyone who supported "No child left behind" since that isn't working either. And in 15 years, we can tax all the liberals who thought Obamacare was a good idea, because that will be another $3T back in the kitty.
I fully support punishing the people who think the federal government's stupid ideas are good ones.  |
No, my point is that people would have to keep paying for a long period of time in order to not cut any current benefits and not generate additional deficits. Chile did what you want to do in 1981, but for 20 years the old pension system still cost about 5% of gdp, which was a significant chunk of the government's budget.
As for the other point. I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the word. I'm more of an old social democrat. But when you look at what both self described conservatives and liberals want to cut from the budget, and what they want to keep, the only real difference is that liberals are ok with increasing taxes. the vast majority of so called conservatives are just as opposed to cutting social security, medicare, and aid to the poor as liberals.