We ask you to vote on the following, which affects only people under 55 on the future of entitlement programs you pay into.
Fact: There are fewer dollars from taxes going into a theoretical program than are taken out, by about a 2 to 1 ratio. One could, for instance, have a tough time justifing paying in $100,000 and drawing out $200,000. Does that make sense?
You as a citizen can now vote on how to handle this. Which do you vote for?
___ 1. Pay more into the program so it will have financial integrity by having enough funds to cover costs. Keep payouts the same with no changes.
___ 2. Reduce the payouts, so people are inadequately covered.
___ 3. Not pay in any more, nor reduce any payouts, and let future generations make up the difference for us, plus cover their own costs
___ 4. Not changing pay-ins or adequate coverage, but reallocating the benefits to the poor by giving reduced or no benefits to those who are at various levels of higher income, who can afford to pay more for their own care.
What are your choices? Note that you could make a choice to combine some of them, such as paying in more plus also allocating benefits differently. (There is another choice also: to have a later age for coverage to start.)
You choose. Let your Congressman know what you will accept.
It is up to you, the Citizens, to responsibly understand the choices and then to actually make them. So you are hereby asked what your choice is.
The Rational NonPolitician
The next blog is how to pay for the benefits, without reducing them at all.
(I would recommend also that a polling organization take a statistically valid poll as to the choices once one has been informed.)
Consider also reading from the site:Medicare, section called Which Of These Would You Support, If You Think It Out?
No comments:
Post a Comment