I've posted in a few other threads but got no answers so I want to bring this to diary level.
How do we counter the "In 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3. By 2030, there will be only 2." claim (exact wording nabbed from
http://www.socialsecurity.org/quickfacts/-- which i already see plenty of non-facts in their 'fact' list, but I've heard it lots of other places)? I mean, I can adlib, but is there a strong rebuttal? Is this patently untrue or not? If true or almost true (lets say there will be 4 payers per payee in 2030 for example, that's still important), what is the best compact argument as to why this is ok?
i had my own ideas: (unfold)
1) Workers are doing better now than they were when social security started, so we can afford to support a bigger percentage of a payee
2) Its worth it (plain and simple) and the alternatives are grim. And the changes on the table by Bush & Co absolutely cannot change this reality.
3) Once the baby boom generation moves through, there will be fewer social security beneficiaries to support
4) ?? your idea ??
I have no problem justifying this to myself, but if I get in a debate about this I'd love to have a handful of concise rebuttals that will stick in their head and are also factual.
Another question brought up by naveenmallik is "Another talking point we need a good rebuttle for is when they say the average retiree lives longer. So there won't just be more of them, they'll be collecting benefits for a longer period."
The simple answer to this is that people living longer is a good thing, a great thing. But that doesn't mean they don't need the help. Still, small tweaks to the existing system can compensate for this change.
Some people might say I'm dumb or being lazy, but hey, I'm not afraid to look dumb if I can get a good rebuttal in my pocket and help others find it too.