Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (262301)	4/22/2008 5:23:36 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Yes, Social Security does provide diability payments and survivors benefits in addition to providing payouts to retirees. As I've said many times before, taking off the income cap (not tax) will fund Social Security as far as the eye can see. No, the baby boom lump of retirees is a demographic oddity. That is, there is no baby boom following directly on the heels of this baby boom. There is a baby bust which is the problem with trying to fund the retirements of the boomers and then there is another baby boom after that. That baby boom is smaller than the big one. This is what happens. Social Security has good decades and bad ones but, even with the big baby boom, taking off the regressive (and thus unfair and unnecessary) income tax for contributions will fund the program. Social Security is a successful government program. There is no guarantee that someone who earns $160K/year in their 20s won't need that SS check in their 80s. Have you seen some 401K plans? No, the problem with the SS tax is that it is REGRESSIVE and thus unfair. If those making $50K/year can afford it then so can someone making $5M/year.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next