On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:40:31 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for > raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. > >From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 > years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. > > http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 > > page 77 according to Acrobat. > > The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in > life expectancy so far (the ratio of >65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% > to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it > will be near 40%. > > http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf > > Dan M. > > Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter.
Yes, but is suspect the real nature of the "crisis" is the GOP not being able to even consider more upper-income tax cuts soon and even requiring those cuts to be rolled back and the SS wage cap raised. Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
