Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (111962)	4/30/2005 8:04:17 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 793958

I don't like faux insurance, either, only thinking about how dramatic the implications of your proposal are. I don't think the country could rationalize getting away from a wage tax while holding on to SS. Not that I want to keep SS, mind you, but just about everyone does. You can't pay pensions to wage earners out of general funds and call that fair, methinks. There's simply no public purpose that I can envision for redistributing moneys from non-wage earners to retired wage earners. You can claim a public purpose in redistribution from rich to poor but from one class of earners to another? If we're going to rob Peter to pay Paul, at least we need a coherent rationale.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next