Read a Venezuelan Guard's 'Chilling' Account About the Delta Force Raid That Nabbed...
Watch What Happens When This Leftist Protester Accosts a CNN Reporter in Minneapolis
Is This Why the Media Isn't Covering the Iran Protests?
Trump Is Minnesota's President, Too
Here's How Much Commie Mamdani's 'Affordable' Government Housing Will Cost You
Knoxville Orchestra Plays Sour Notes of Racial Preference over Talent
ICE Stories They Don’t Tell You
Kristi Noem Torches CNN’s Jake Tapper in Fiery Clash Over Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Miami Jury Convicts Two Executives in $34M Medicare Advantage Brace Fraud Scheme
Chinese National With Overstayed Visa Charged as Ringleader in Firearms Conspiracy
CNN Panel Sparks Firestorm After Abby Phillip Calls Somali Families 'Victims' of Minnesota...
Syrian Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Nearly $191K in U.S. Social Security Benefits
Leftist Agitators Stalk and Threaten to Kill Journalist Covering Minneapolis Unrest
Minneapolis Radicals Begin Distributing Devices to Disable ICE Vehicles
Sons of Liberty, Sons of Legacy: Forming the Men Who Will Shape America’s...
OPINION

Getting More For Less

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

If you are like me, you grow frustrated when billionaires come out and tell the public how to live their lives. I am especially suspect of billionaires who are buying up robot companies, while trying to convince the public that we should work half as hard. In other words, when the dudes from Google try to pitch this sort of thing, I find it total nonsense, and a cover for the fact that one day, we may not have a choice to work half as much, or not at all since their robots will work a lot harder for a lot less.

Advertisement

However, comments from Carlos Slim, perhaps the richest man in the world, hints at something very different.

The Mexican billionaire suggests a three-day work week (where one works 11-hours a day) will contribute to a better quality of life. Here's the catch: work until the age of 75. Sure, he tossed in the quality of life stuff; after all, it's part of a greater socialist utopia pitch that is gaining traction in the media, even if it is a cop-out. It's just an excuse for a western nation that is losing economic clout after a series of failed policies.

Considering life expectancy these days, his suggestion is not unreasonable. Considering how much money has been promised to retirees, there may not be any other choice.

From now to 2030, 77 million baby boomers will retire, and will be looking for a lot of money from the government. None will feel that they are ripping off the system as they have all paid into it, and some for several decades.

Moreover, here is the rub: currently our unfunded liabilities are at $47 trillion and by 2030, when the last baby boomers who head off to their golden years, the number could be up to $100 trillion.

So, yes, we are paying into the program, just look at Medicare.

Advertisement

Most of us are going to take out a lot more than what we put into the system. But this money that is promised... can it be delivered?

Solutions:

* Retirement at 70 (later 72)
* Greater contributions
* Investment in stock market (Fortune 100)
* Private Accounts (transferable)
* Keep all current promises
* No new taxes
* Phased in over a 5 to ten-year period

I know this is a political loser (and has wrecked more political careers than sex scandals), but it must be dealt with just like debt, along with the runaway government spending which must be addressed, as well.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement