View Single Post
  #68  
Old 05-16-2019, 01:23 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Shouldn't the plan over the long term be to match revenues to expenses? Between the baby boom and immigration, the US had a long period where the ratio of people paying into the system compared to recipients from the system was pretty high. That ratio's been declining for years as the baby boomers have retired and post-retirement lifespans have increased. The revenue banked years ago is now being expended - the long term has caught up.

If the tax base continues to grow, while the number of recipients and associated payouts plateaus, then you'd have an argument for a lower reserve. However lowering revenue while expenses are increasing at a greater rate than current revenues would turn a manageable gentle decline into a steep decline requiring a drastic future intervention. That strikes me as bad policy.
I totally agree with matching (plus a reasonable reserve amount) incomes to outflows. Currently I'm not seeing the reserve shrink. It hovers around 200-300%. I would perfer 25-100%.