Laurence Kotlikoff has a list of what he calls "awful inequities"in Social Security that outrage him. And he doesn't even mention the cap on the F.I.C.A. tax! How many do you agree with? I'd note that most of the "inequities" he talks about would end if dependent and survivor benefits were stopped. Do you think that would be a good idea? A politically plausible idea?
1 comment:
Of course when a line is drawn one person will be on one side and another person on the other. So age, duration of marriage, another other rule dependent upon a date will allow for eligibility for one person while denying it to another. This will apply to an adult who becomes disabled after attainment of age 22, or a spouse who was married 9 3/4 years.
I am pretty sure there is no political capitol for anyone to advocate taking money away from widows and orphans.
The one change I would like to see is no entitlement for spouses or children who married or were born after the individual's retirement date or 9 months after date of onset.
Post a Comment