| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
 |
|
In article <c2nk74lofst3naqprj3lvcapt60fp83jr3@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:57:02 -0200, Neolibertarian
cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
What do they call it when an administrator spends the "surplus" in a
pension fund?
You mean absent law?
|
No.
| Quote: |
Or do you just like to shoot your mouth off?
|
Accusing someone of shooting their mouth off here at Usenet, is like
accusing someone of having a lead foot at the Indy 500.
However, I think it would be more proper to say someone likes to "shoot
their fingers off" when referring to Usenet. If you see what I mean...
--
NeoLibertarian
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 3:32 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:08:24 -0700, "OneTwoThree"
you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
BTW, the government continues to steal social security - using it to maks
the realities of the deficit
Stealing is against the law
Income tax is not.
Glad to educate you in basic civics.
obviously you are too stupid to understand the difference between the income
tax and FICA
So, you're claimng that FICA tax isn't related to
Income?
|
FICA is an insurance. Your FICA payments are insurance premiums. The
coverage and benefit package the government forces you to purchase is
based on income. Like all other insurance, the FICA premiums are
based on the coverage and benefits.
Jane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:41 am, jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 3:32 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:08:24 -0700, "OneTwoThree"
you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
BTW, the government continues to steal social security - using it to maks
the realities of the deficit
Stealing is against the law
Income tax is not.
Glad to educate you in basic civics.
obviously you are too stupid to understand the difference between the income
tax and FICA
So, you're claimng that FICA tax isn't related to
Income?
FICA is an insurance. Your FICA payments are insurance premiums. The
coverage and benefit package the government forces you to purchase is
based on income. Like all other insurance, the FICA premiums are
based on the coverage and benefits.
|
Yes, and no.
Unlike other insurance programs, payouts are adjusted based upon
need, that is the payout is a higher percentage for those who earned
less. We really don't want to see old people sleeping on the streets
just because the didn't make much money during their lifetime. Still,
it's not enough to make ends meet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 8:05 am, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 4:41 am, jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:32 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:08:24 -0700, "OneTwoThree"
you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
BTW, the government continues to steal social security - using it to maks
the realities of the deficit
Stealing is against the law
Income tax is not.
Glad to educate you in basic civics.
obviously you are too stupid to understand the difference between the income
tax and FICA
So, you're claimng that FICA tax isn't related to
Income?
FICA is an insurance. Your FICA payments are insurance premiums. The
coverage and benefit package the government forces you to purchase is
based on income. Like all other insurance, the FICA premiums are
based on the coverage and benefits.
Yes, and no.
|
Yes & No:
Yes: it is an insurance.
No: it is not "exactly" like a private insurance in so many ways that
we wouldn't get any work done if we went off in that direction.
I was speaking in general terms to address nick's misconception that
FICA payments are an income tax.
| Quote: |
Unlike other insurance programs, payouts are adjusted based upon
need, that is the payout is a higher percentage for those who earned
less. We really don't want to see old people sleeping on the streets
just because the didn't make much money during their lifetime. Still,
it's not enough to make ends meet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:43 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:30:16 -0400, Democracy
Highlander <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OneTwoThree wrote:
when you put money into savings, you create an asset that should be there
working for you.
when you put money into savings they erode with inflation
when you put money into assets you get an Enron stock
when you put money into a hedge-fund like Bayou Group you get an Samuel
Israel to deal with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/03bayou.html
when you put money into "respected" Wall Street giant like Bear Stern the
shares tumble
etc......
A KEEPER ! !
|
I just love it when some financially illiterate person cites Enron as
an example as to why the private sector investing is BAD. I
especially love it when it is used as an example to prove how superior
Social Security is.
For every Enron or World Com that you show me, I can show you a
multitude of stellar performers. Now, you might think that I would
have to hand pick stocks that were renowned, such as Xerox or
MicroSoft in their early days.
Not True! I can pick an old fashioned, stodgy stock like a
supermarket stock or soap company stock. Since 1970 (the year someone
who is 60 years old would probably have started working) , Kroger is
up an annualized 7.61%; Procter & Gamble is up 10.26% and Collgate is
up 10.48%.
How does that compare to your government provided 1.8%? If you
reinvest your Stock dividends, the rate of return for those three
companies is even better.
Let's presume that you are 60 today and you started to put $2,000/yr
in your IRA at the age of 29 (because you were too stupid and immature
to start any sooner). Just to be fair, let's use the worst of the
three, Kroger, because you are financially conservative, you don't
want a risky investment, and you figure everyone will always have to
eat. So, on Jan 2 of each year you buy $2000 worth of Kroger stock
inside of your IRA. You keep the dividends in the IRA and reinvest
that in more Kroger stock.
NOW, are you sitting down? Today, your IRA would be worth over 2
million dollars ( $2,066,176 to be exact).
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
Jane |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
datakoll
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
| SSA is a government agency ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds?
|
You and I are trying to prove the same thing. I am trying to prove
that DemocracyHigh can't use Enron to judge the entire private sector,
and you are trying to prove to me that I can't use Kroger to judge the
entire private sector.
If I use my example with your time frame, then things aren't quite as
good. Presuming that a person hit 60 in 2001, invested $2000 each
year in the DOW starting in his 29th year, he would have around a half
million; not enough for retirement.
However, if you want to do a real comparison of Social Security with
the private sector, then you should invest the same amounts, not just
$2,000/yr. I had a friend who did exactly that. He invested 13%/yr
in the private sector, turned 60 in 2001 and retired.
Everyone who is against private investment loves to point to the crash
of 2000. "What happens if you had to retire in 2001?" The fact that
we had a market crash in 2000 isn't the real issue. We also had a
market crash in 87 and a recession in 91. What matters is the
anuallized return. My friend retired in 2001 with over 2 million.
I once ran the numbers for the median income person who invested in
the private sector vs the SSA. Sorry, but I no longer know where that
analysis is. However, I do remember that it was far superior to what
you would have had under SSA.
Jane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:43 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:30:16 -0400, Democracy
Highlander <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OneTwoThree wrote:
when you put money into savings, you create an asset that should be there
working for you.
when you put money into savings they erode with inflation
when you put money into assets you get an Enron stock
when you put money into a hedge-fund like Bayou Group you get an Samuel
Israel to deal with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/03bayou.html
when you put money into "respected" Wall Street giant like Bear Stern the
shares tumble
etc......
A KEEPER ! !
I just love it when some financially illiterate person cites Enron as
an example as to why the private sector investing is BAD. I
especially love it when it is used as an example to prove how superior
Social Security is.
I agree. But I have to say that your arguments below are about as
valid.
For every Enron or World Com that you show me, I can show you a
multitude of stellar performers. Now, you might think that I would
have to hand pick stocks that were renowned, such as Xerox or
MicroSoft in their early days.
Not at all. 20/20 hindsight doesn't depend on big names.
Not True! I can pick an old fashioned, stodgy stock like a
supermarket stock or soap company stock. Since 1970 (the year someone
who is 60 years old would probably have started working) , Kroger is
up an annualized 7.61%; Procter & Gamble is up 10.26% and Collgate is
up 10.48%.
Hmmm. I wonder why you didn't pick A&P? <g
Seriously, picking like you did as a demonstration makes you look the
intellectual peer of the bozo you were responding to.
How does that compare to your government provided 1.8%?
You don't have to go through that kind of illustration to prove that
an investment scheme will be better financially for you than paying
FICA taxes. It's a given--social insurance has costs dissimilar to
investments.
|
Ya, with out a doubt. Costs like the Congress spending the surplus.
| Quote: |
Let's presume that you are 60 today and you started to put $2,000/yr
in your IRA at the age of 29 (because you were too stupid and immature
to start any sooner). Just to be fair,
Why start now? You've just said you are going to compare an investment
of $2,000 per year with a social insurance program where the total
taxes (ee and er portion, OASI only) capped out at $569.40 in 1970. So
why worry about "fair" in the rest of your comparison?
|
The reason I picked $2000 was because that was the limit imposed when
the IRA was first introduced. By the same token, I did not increase
the investment as years went by to 12.6% of a person making median
income.
For my three stock selections, I turned on a stock search filter that
was set for large cap, consumer staples, growth. I picked the first
grocery store name, and the first two soap company names.
I agree that my argument was an absurdity. I was using my absurdity
of picking one stock to prove the absurdity of his picking one stock.
| Quote: |
let's use the worst of the
three, Kroger, because you are financially conservative, you don't
want a risky investment, and you figure everyone will always have to
eat.
Good argument for using A&P. How does the illustration work with FICA
taxes invested in A&P?
snip
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security,
That's a fair characterization; if you have moderate to good income,
you are indeed a financial idiot to depend on Social Security for your
retirement. That doesn't mean it doesn't serve a valid purpose as a
social insurance program/safety net.
|
I agree. If we didn't have it, we would have a whole lot of old people
on welfare. We might as well collect money from them in their working
years. Unfortunately it is far more than a safety net. There are
two major issues with it.
1) It collects 12.6% of wages. It would be a far better, and cheaper,
if it were actually reduced down to a welfare program (safety net).
Let people keep more of their money during working years to invest in
private 401K or ROTH plans.
2) It collects 12.6% of wages; far more than was needed between 1983
and 2017. That surplus money was spent in the general fund. It would
have been better to reduce it, and allow people to keep more of their
own money to invest in private 401K or ROTH plans.
Jane.
| Quote: |
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:14 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:19:20 -0400, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds?
You'd still be way ahead in her absurd illustration. Trying to use a
case like that to argue for Social Security as an INVESTMENT is a
suckers play. Social Security is social insurance, not a retirement
program or investment. "Proving" that it is a good or bad investment
is pointless, and anyone trying to "prove" that it is a good
investment will lose nine times out of ten.
More importantly, to me anyway, is it makes nonsense of the security
portion of the name. (I know I know some say we've already done that.
But no point in doing it wholesale. We've seen the way the scam
artists poured out to rake in the private prescription plans money -
we'd see a similar scam flood to get those social security books
privatized into other hands. As happened in Chile.)
|
I'll tell you what. You and I can continue this conversation in 2017
and discuss that "security" word. Right now, the SSA surplus is being
used to subsidize the general fund.
Around 2017 there will be a double wammy. Around 2017, there will no
longer be a SSA surplus.
Wammy #1: This means that there will no longer be a flow of cash from
the SSA to the general fund and the general fund will need "extra"
cash from some other source.
Wammy #2: Since SSA receipt will be insufficient to pay benefits, the
cash needed to pay benefits will have to come from some other source.
Jane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.playne@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
|
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alexy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.playne@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds?
|
You'd still be way ahead in her absurd illustration. Trying to use a
case like that to argue for Social Security as an INVESTMENT is a
suckers play. Social Security is social insurance, not a retirement
program or investment. "Proving" that it is a good or bad investment
is pointless, and anyone trying to "prove" that it is a good
investment will lose nine times out of ten.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alexy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
jane.playne@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:43 am, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:30:16 -0400, Democracy
Highlander <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OneTwoThree wrote:
when you put money into savings, you create an asset that should be there
working for you.
when you put money into savings they erode with inflation
when you put money into assets you get an Enron stock
when you put money into a hedge-fund like Bayou Group you get an Samuel
Israel to deal with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/03bayou.html
when you put money into "respected" Wall Street giant like Bear Stern the
shares tumble
etc......
A KEEPER ! !
I just love it when some financially illiterate person cites Enron as
an example as to why the private sector investing is BAD. I
especially love it when it is used as an example to prove how superior
Social Security is.
|
I agree. But I have to say that your arguments below are about as
valid.
| Quote: |
For every Enron or World Com that you show me, I can show you a
multitude of stellar performers. Now, you might think that I would
have to hand pick stocks that were renowned, such as Xerox or
MicroSoft in their early days.
Not at all. 20/20 hindsight doesn't depend on big names. |
| Quote: |
Not True! I can pick an old fashioned, stodgy stock like a
supermarket stock or soap company stock. Since 1970 (the year someone
who is 60 years old would probably have started working) , Kroger is
up an annualized 7.61%; Procter & Gamble is up 10.26% and Collgate is
up 10.48%.
Hmmm. I wonder why you didn't pick A&P? <g |
Seriously, picking like you did as a demonstration makes you look the
intellectual peer of the bozo you were responding to.
| Quote: |
How does that compare to your government provided 1.8%?
You don't have to go through that kind of illustration to prove that |
an investment scheme will be better financially for you than paying
FICA taxes. It's a given--social insurance has costs dissimilar to
investments.
| Quote: |
Let's presume that you are 60 today and you started to put $2,000/yr
in your IRA at the age of 29 (because you were too stupid and immature
to start any sooner). Just to be fair,
Why start now? You've just said you are going to compare an investment |
of $2,000 per year with a social insurance program where the total
taxes (ee and er portion, OASI only) capped out at $569.40 in 1970. So
why worry about "fair" in the rest of your comparison?
| Quote: |
let's use the worst of the
three, Kroger, because you are financially conservative, you don't
want a risky investment, and you figure everyone will always have to
eat.
Good argument for using A&P. How does the illustration work with FICA |
taxes invested in A&P?
<snip>
| Quote: |
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security,
That's a fair characterization; if you have moderate to good income, |
you are indeed a financial idiot to depend on Social Security for your
retirement. That doesn't mean it doesn't serve a valid purpose as a
social insurance program/safety net.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:19:20 -0400, alexy <nospam@asbry.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.playne@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds?
You'd still be way ahead in her absurd illustration. Trying to use a
case like that to argue for Social Security as an INVESTMENT is a
suckers play. Social Security is social insurance, not a retirement
program or investment. "Proving" that it is a good or bad investment
is pointless, and anyone trying to "prove" that it is a good
investment will lose nine times out of ten.
|
More importantly, to me anyway, is it makes nonsense of the security
portion of the name. (I know I know some say we've already done that.
But no point in doing it wholesale. We've seen the way the scam
artists poured out to rake in the private prescription plans money -
we'd see a similar scam flood to get those social security books
privatized into other hands. As happened in Chile.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 12:50 pm, jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a financial idiot and decided to depend on Social
Security, you would have to work 6 more years to collect a bit over
$1,000/month. Happy days; you get to live in poverty!
And if you retired in 2001 and were in index funds?
You and I are trying to prove the same thing. I am trying to prove
that DemocracyHigh can't use Enron to judge the entire private sector,
and you are trying to prove to me that I can't use Kroger to judge the
entire private sector.
If I use my example with your time frame, then things aren't quite as
good. Presuming that a person hit 60 in 2001, invested $2000 each
year in the DOW starting in his 29th year, he would have around a half
million; not enough for retirement.
However, if you want to do a real comparison of Social Security with
the private sector, then you should invest the same amounts, not just
$2,000/yr. I had a friend who did exactly that. He invested 13%/yr
in the private sector, turned 60 in 2001 and retired.
Everyone who is against private investment loves to point to the crash
of 2000. "What happens if you had to retire in 2001?" The fact that
we had a market crash in 2000 isn't the real issue. We also had a
market crash in 87 and a recession in 91. What matters is the
anuallized return. My friend retired in 2001 with over 2 million.
I once ran the numbers for the median income person who invested in
the private sector vs the SSA. Sorry, but I no longer know where that
analysis is. However, I do remember that it was far superior to what
you would have had under SSA.
Jane.
|
As with most things, anecdotal evidence is a bit suspect.
The problem is multi-fold.
1. SSI also covers people who are unable to work for one reason or
another.
2. SSI also covers dependent children.
3. Bad things happen to good people.
4. People make mistakes.
5. The more people putting money in when everyone else is putting
money
in the more expensive it is to buy.
6. The more people taking money out when everyone else is taking
money
out the less value it is to sell.
There's advantage in the big pool even as there is disadvantage in
particular
instances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Democracy Highlander
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Why Does John McCain Hate Social Security? |
|
|
jane.playne@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I just love it when some financially illiterate person cites Enron as
an example as to why the private sector investing is BAD. I
especially love it when it is used as an example to prove how superior
Social Security is.
|
However I find it sad to see that there still exist enough economic
illiterate who argue that because some private sector companies did not
collapse yet, we should dismantle the Social Security and gamble at
all-Street all the future of hardworking people.
It is very important to understand few things:
Social Security it is not an investment fund run by the profits of some
existing companies and because of that it is stable at the financial
shifts. Because it work outside of the market, it have the possibility to
survive market manipulation.
Even in the case that for some reason the market collapse and it is
restarted from scratch with all brand new companies the SS will get the
same amount of money even if none of the companies existent before the
crash survived.
Possibly, this is exactly the point why the crooks hate SS, because they
crash and Enron but before that move their money in competitions companies.
So in the end the suckers who didn't play the sharks game are the only one
in the harm ways. SS is immune to this kind of fraud.
Another thing is that SS is (ALMOST) guaranteed to grow with the economy
regardless of who are the winners and the losers. By taxing a fixed percent
of the income, even if the economy move toward a new system of employee
owned companies or public companies (ex: city/county/tribes owned) to
replace a private sector moving offshore and closing domestic plants, if
the economy grow the SS revenue grow too, while the pensions will collapse
along with the closing private plants.
Even if US owned corporations are destroyed completely and Middle East or
Chinese investors come to open their plants here (with money we payed them
for oil or lead based toys) the SS will have it fixed source of income,
while the US closed corporations drove the 401k to the ground.
And here is the (ALMOST) part from 2 paragraphs above. If we keep the SS tax
only on earned income less than 90k and not on any usury income, the SS is
in danger if the oversupply of labor drive wages to the ground and the rich
Chinese and Arabs owners get richer than God Himself.
And here is the real fix for SS: Remove the 90k cap and make any income
taxable for SS. This will fix the SS and will also make it invulnerable to
any swift of power.
However, on top of SS the standard pensions and 401 keys can remain a valid
option for a comfortable or luxury retirement. Agree !
But do not destroy SS by idiotic privatization !!!
--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
Democracy Highlander
P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
150 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
