Wow.

Wow. That's all I have to say. I just had to clip this response in total from the article on "Older Workers Need Not Apply" in the NY Times.

This is just a part of what Laurence J. Kotlikoff wrote. What do you think???

Pay the Aged Less

The solution?

First, modify the Age Discrimination Act by establishing a national age-productivity reference profile that employers can use to defend pay cuts they feel they need to impose on their older workers in order to retain them.

Second, scrap employer-based retirement programs in favor of a Personal Security System under which all workers would invest 8 percent of pay in a global stock/bond index fund. The government would split contributions between spouses, match contributions by the poor, convert balances at retirement to inflation-adjusted annuities, and guarantee that retirement balances equal at least what one contributed adjusted for inflation.

Third, scrap employer-based health care in favor of a Medical Security System under which all Americans receive an annual voucher to buy a basic health plan for the year. The size of the voucher would equal one’s expected costs under the basic plan. So those with pre-existing conditions would receive larger vouchers. The aggregate voucher budget would be set at 10 percent of G.D.P., which means the country won’t go broke.

Fourth, scrap the current tax system in favor of the “FairTax” plan, which is equivalent to a very low, flat-rate wage tax plus a one-time tax on wealth plus a monthly “demogrant.” This “right-wing” proposal is something every Democrat should love. The tax is implemented by taxing all retail sales. In my version, I’d tax the consumption services (called imputed rent) from living in your own home. Such a broad-based FairTax would have a very low rate. Indeed, most older, as well as younger, workers who move from paying roughly 40 cents of every dollar earned to Uncle Sam to only 18 cents.

This will give older workers plenty of incentive to stay on the job.

Thoughts???