Sorry to have to inform you, but the FICA increase passed by Jimmy Carter in 1976 increased FICA taxes a lot. Also, IRA's were passed to help get people tosave. Then there was the earned income credit and child care credit all items which reduced the taxes paid by middle class and below. This is what was meant by reducing the burden of the Federal Income Tax. As you may recall, the IRA was 100% deductible then.
Where did you here the unfunded liability is only $10 Trillion over 75 years? Think a little about this. $10 Trillion over 75 years has a present value of$62.548 Billion. If the unfunded liability were just $62.5 Billion, we would not be talking about a problem now. But you are wrong to think it is over 75 years. For example in the first year OASI runs cash negative, it does so by $171 Billion. In the year 2053 OASI will be short by over $1 Trillion per year. If you include debt financing on the portion to make up the shorfall, the indebtedness of OASI will be $24 Trillion in 2053. In the year 2074 (75 years from now) OASI will be indebt to the tune of $122 Trillion of which $49 Trillion be cash negative flows and the $73 Trillion be interest owed.
Please provide the location of your information. It is very flawed. Take a look at the year-by-year cash flow till 2100.
Obviously you did not read my posting. What I pointed out with mathematics, was the flawed use of life expectancy in the Social Security debate. Had you read the article and looked at the mathematics you wold have saw I stated increaed life expectancy was due to a reduction in infant mortality rates and innoculations of those under 18. The life expectancy at 65 in 1935 is not much different from todays person at 65, yet "life expectancy" has increased from about 65 to 87.
I never have stated in my writings or calculations that life expectancy at age zero should be used. Many believe one should only look foreward to 11 years in retirement because that is what the average life expecancy comes out to (76-65). However, the truth is the life expecancy today at 65 is about 17.78 years. So should a person plan for 17.78 years in retirement or should they plan for 23 years in retirement? Since the 17.78 is an average of those who make it to 65, it would seem foolish to use 17.78 years. 25 to 30 years would be wise to make sure you do not run out of money.
As for Social Security wanting to raise the retirement age, it has no baring on benefits paid. OASI has increased from a 2% in 1937 on the first 110% of the average wage to over 10.3% on the first 270% of the average wage. The life expectancy at 65 has gone from just over 15 years in 1935 to 17.78 years in 1994. I just do not see how a small 19% increase in life expectancy construes into a delay in retirement when taxes have gone up a whopping 465% on the base and 1300% on the base and tax.
If your life expectancy tables differ from the one posted below, I would like to look at them.
