| ??? 03/31/07 07:47 Read: times |
#136280 - Sure, but... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Patrick De Groote said:
One thing to note: The average age of the population is rising. So claims are made that the active population will be too small to sustain the retired population. That's the inherent problem. If the money we contributed to social security were actually set aside, it would've been sustainable. But when we were contributing more to social security than social security was paying out, the extra wasn't saved. It was spent. Now we're toast. It's a mathematical certainty. The only solution (here in the U.S.) is to continue to increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, or let more and more young immigrants into the country so we can hope that they can pay for our retirement. Regardless of the "solution," it's a classic Ponzi scheme until such time as the system is actually saving money that is contributed rather than spending it on others that have already contributed. If it weren't the government doing it, it'd be illegal. And for good reason. It's unsustainable and someone will get burned. And I strongly believe I'll be one of the millions that get burned. Well, abuse will always be there. But that can be minimized... Always consider the majority of people... Not the few exceptions that are usaully more mentioned in the media than joe average, just doing the best he can. I believe the majority of the population get far less back from the government than they put in over the course of a lifetime. Time to have nice weekend... all of us... Agreed. Tomorrow looks a bit cold here, but it looks like Sunday will be a decent day for a nice bike ride. I'm looking forward to that. Regards, Craig Steiner |
