Yes - absolutely
Yes - it's more-or-less the same as
No - but it's pretty close
No - not even close
Social Security is safe and secure, please stop scaring people.
This is a crummy question with no relevance.
Last edited by drz-400; 09-14-11 at 03:06 AM.
If SS remained as you aptly described it as an insurance program for retirement age individuals only it would be fine financially.
I still have never recieve an answer to the question...if you abolish social secuirty and medicare like Ron Paul supporters and some teapartiers want....in the end who pays for the very poor that couldnt save for their retirement and senior healthcare...or the people that just didnt....that question begs an answer because there WILL BE MILLIONS of these people...
I think it's interesting the Social Security Admin. made this comparison in 2009 on their own website.
The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.
The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest.
Social Security on Pace to be Drained by 2037 - CBS News
Last edited by drz-400; 09-14-11 at 11:24 AM.
1. They operate indefinitely
2. They are compulsory
3. The government can tax and borrow
IMO, it would be almost cost prohibitive if they were as it would require substantially higher taxes.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
2) With only 76% of those payments, how far does that move out the break even point?