[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[Kenneth Fairfield]

On Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:29:55 PM UTC-8, AEF wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:47 am, Kenneth Fairfield <ken.fa... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2011 6:50:17 PM UTC-8, AEF wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 10:54 am, Kenneth Fairfield <ken.... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Indeed.  Just lift the cap on SSI tax for incomes in excess of $106K and the problem disappears.  Sigh...
> >
> > > How about changing the retirement age? Implementing means testing? And
> > > raising the "cap"?
> >
> > Both very bad ideas.
> >
> > Changing the retirement age only works for the upper-income (or socio-economic classes) who generally have better health and longer life expectancy.  It fails miserably for the laborers (whether carpenters, or farm workers, truck drivers or garbage collectors): their bodies where out from all the physical stress, and that added to their statistically poorer health.  It amounts to a tremendous burden on those who can least manage it.
> 
> OK, nothing that.

"OK, *noting* that" ???

> > Needs testing turns SSI into a "welfare program".
> 
> Wait a minute. First you complain that the poor will be hurt *more* by
> raising the age (meaning we should lower it?!) and then complain that
> "means testing" (not "Needs testing" makes it a welfare program. I
> don't follow that.

I'm afraid I've been typing too quickly and proof-reading to poorly.  

Yes, *means* testing is the subject of the previous paragraph.

Stepping back a bit, you asked about three alternatives, presumably to fix the perceived SSI problem, when you said,

> > > How about changing the retirement age? Implementing means testing? And
> > > raising the "cap"?

I've been attempting to address each one in turn, retirement age (should *not* be raised), means testing (changes SSI from insurance into welfare/entitlement program), and raising the cap (a good idea, as in *eliminate* the cap on *contributions* *to* SSI).

[snip]

> Why is there a cap in the first place? 

Because the wealthy didn't want to pay it.  Why else are there tax loopholes? 

>                                         Did I say not to raise the cap?
> Yes, you're not being clear here.

Yes, you did say to raise the cap.  I was just addressing each of your three sentences in turn.  I think I was clear in arguing why one *wants* to eliminate the cap...in agreement with that one of your three sentences...

[snip]

> Yes, that's good. Did I say otherwise? I thought it was going to go
> insolvent by current projections. I thought there was a problem. I
> thought that's why we brought this up in the first place.

The pundits and rw politicians in the Washington bubble are trying to convince the public that there is a solvency problem.  That's because they want to privatize or otherwise kill SSI.  It's an ideological thing.  It's not a *real* problem.

The facts are that SSI is in great shape, better than *any* other government program.  There was a potential problem looming when the baby-boomer's generation (me!) retired, but that was fixed long ago by increasing the SSI tax (under Reagan, BTW).  If, and only if, future demographics and the state of the economy show that there is a *real* future shortfall, as opposed to a Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling-made-up shortfall, *that* could be corrected by eliminating the SSI contribution cap.  But one could also eliminate the cap and *lower* the SSI tax rate.  I'd be in favor of that. :-)

[snip]

> Are we disagreeing to agree here?

I think we are quite in agreement.  The only reason I started to follow-up is because of the suggestions (in the media, and reflected in your post) that either raising the retirement age or doing means testing are reasonable policy solutions to the non-problem of SSI solvency.

   -Ken