tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post1965999397210064518..comments2023-11-12T06:43:00.060-05:00Comments on Notes on Social Security Reform: Life expectancy gap between rich and poor widensAndrew G. Biggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617460431856611873noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post-62178946590259756202008-04-06T00:24:00.000-04:002008-04-06T00:24:00.000-04:00well,that's life expectancy at birth. my guess is...well,<BR/><BR/>that's life expectancy at birth. my guess is that life expectancy at 65 for least disadvantaged means that they can expect to get in benefits at least as much as they paid in, even if they were at the cap every year of their working lives... adjusted for inflation and general rise in wages.<BR/><BR/>as for the progressivity/regressivity... i get a little tired of liberals and conservatives arguing about this.<BR/>the program is progressive. calling the tax "regressive" is just a liberal way to ask for social security to be turned into welfare. on the other hand, the consevatives pretend that it already is welfare.<BR/><BR/>the current balance of taxes and benefits is very close to what it should be for Social Security to be "fair" whether you end up a "winner" by being poor enough to get a higher "return" or a "loser" by being rich enough to have to regard your lost opportunity costs as "insurance."<BR/><BR/>but of course this is just being rational. and the last rational train left the station twenty years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com