[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said otherwise. Nate is criticizing SS when he should be saving his fire and brimstone for Congress spending like drunken sailors (and I know a bit about drunken sailors. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )I know natedogg probably does hate the way the Congress spends. There are some legit criticims (the regressive nature of the taxes being most legitimate in my eyes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you focus on the regressive nature of the taxes, when the net system of benefits and taxes is not regressive, and is in fact slightly progressive?

If you believe that the net system should be even more progressive, eg a needs test to receive benefits, then that is social policy that can be debated.

However, that definitely moves you further away from a relatively pure and self-supporting retirement system to another wealth transfer program. With the boomers retirement a rational retirement policy needs to continue to focus on its main purpose, and not become just another welfare program.