Retiree benefits grow into 'monster'

[TechBear_Seattle]

Thank you, borrow and spend Republicans! :sarcasm:

Retiree benefits grow into 'monster'
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Taxpayers owe more than a half-million dollars per household for financial promises made by government, mostly to cover the cost of retirement benefits for baby boomers, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Federal, state and local governments have added nearly $10 trillion to taxpayer liabilities in the past two years, bringing the total of government's unfunded obligations to an unprecedented $57.8 trillion. (Emphasis added)

That is the equivalent of a $510,678 credit card debt for every American household. Payments on this delinquent tax bill must start soon if financial promises to the elderly are to be kept.

The cost of retirement programs will start to soar when baby boomers - 79 million born between 1946 and 1964 - begin collecting Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011.

"This is a monster financial problem that both parties are going to have to solve," says Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a member of the House Budget Committee. "Most Americans and Congress members don't realize the terrific burden we are putting on future generations."

The article continues at http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060525/pl_usatoday/retireebenefitsgrowintomonster

[Virginia Dare]

1. Yes, be very kind to your children and other young kin...

they're going to be the ones who have to figure out a way to resolve this, and it won't be easy. Regardless, I don't exactly see a "golden age" for us baby boomers.

[Warpy]

2. Gee, instead of squandering the money on executive salaries

and perks and on stupid studies run by overpriced suits, perhaps they should have considered FUNDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

Folks we're headed for a disaster in this country, a disaster of a huge number of impoverished old folks.

Anybody who is under 40 now had better trade thier housing up for a McMansion with lots of extra bedrooms. You're going to need them for your PARENTS.

No, I'm not kidding, either. That's how it was done even in the days when we had pensions, but before social security.

The right, of course, just wants us all to crawl off and die once we hit 55- unless we're rich.

[indepat]

3. This monster financial problem can only be solved by reneging on

these obligations: that's the Repukes' scheme to fund their multi-trillion pillage of the treasury for the exclusive benefit of the most affluent and large corporations and the joke is on all of us, especially the middle-class idiots who support their policies and actions.

[papau]

4. What BULLSHIT - change the interest rate in the calc and no problem

change the GDP growth and no problem

change the tax rate by 2% and no problem

change the retirement age from Reagan's 67 to age 70 after 2050, and no problem

I love our "we are not controlled by the RW GOP - we just act like it" media - and I love the GOP media whores like Dennis Cauchon, writer of the original post's USA Today article.

[Orsino]

6. Yep. Wanna bet that the solution to this problem...

...isn't privatizing retirement? No, you don't.

It's another trumped-up crisis, wherein the victims are blamed and the rich are never, ever held responsible. Meanwhile, billions in tax cuts are, of course, a sensible policy.

[MadHound]

5. Well this could all be solved

By repealing all of the tax breaks that the rich have received in the past five years. That would amount to about 11 trillion dollars right there.

[papau]

7. You only need 2 T - and removing cap on wages subject to payroll tax

does 1.75% of the 2.0% payroll tax increase that gets you $2 T - so increase the retirement age from current 67 to 68 by 2040 and there is no problem - even on the very conservative "intermediate" projection.

Indeed the real world projection - the 3rd project in the Trustee's Report - the one that uses a rather low GDP growth assumption, but still is using the highest GDP grow assumption of the 3 projections - shows no problem - not ever - with current law unchanged.

WE DO NOT NEED AN SS CHANGE

WE DO NEED SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL NATIONAL HEALTH

[MadHound]

8. I'm not advocating SS change, I'm all for UHC

All I'm saying is that we should repeal all of the tax breaks we've given the rich over the past five years:shrug:

And frankly I'm dead set against bumping up the retirement age anymore. I would like to have at least a few decent years to enjoy life before I check out.

[papau]

9. the Reagan age bumps do not end until 67 is achieved in a few years -

going to 68 would start 20 years from now with an add on of 1 month per year for each year further out.

I don't think it would affect me - or my kids!

And Repealing the tax breaks for the rich - and ending the wage cap on the payroll tax - plus passing Nat'l Health is job one if we ever get back in power.