Why oh why can't we have a better press corps? The innumeracy at the New York Times... The stupidity... It burns! IT BURNS!!
And Now, a Word From Chile ... - New York Times: [American] Social Security does need some changes to protect it over the long term.... [A] combination of modest benefit cuts and modest tax increases, which could be phased in gradually over decades and could guarantee a government benefit that replaces about 30 percent of preretirement income on average, compared with a replacement rate of about 35 percent today.... As long as tax increases are off the table, severe benefit cuts become unavoidable. If the gap in Social Security's finances were closed through benefit cuts only, the average worker's payout would equal only about 10 percent of preretirement earnings...
So the New York Times says that current Social Security taxes--roughly 10.5% of taxable payroll--would only allow for Social Security benefits to equal 10% of average preretirement earnings.
And the New York Times says that with "modest" tax increases Social Security benefits could equal 30% of average preretirement earnings.
There's this thing called arithmetic.
It says that 1+1+1=3.
If you want to get three times the benefit replacement rate, you need to have three times the taxes. Money that flows out equals money that flows in.
God knows where the New York Times got that 10% number, or what they think it is, or what it really is, or why nobody on the New York Times editorial page staff can add, or even perform a simple consistency check, or... or... or... IT BURNS!!!