Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : It's the Economy- Stupid -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (41)	6/28/2000 7:00:00 AM
From: ztect	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65

I also think the "communal" aspect is important.... Thus as an addendum to my prior post, if the numbers work, I'd do something that would appear contradictory, at first, until you factor in the second part. I'd cut social security taxes by 30 to 50 % and apply the tax to all income without the $65,000 cap in conjunction w. means testing. The tax would be flat at about 3 to 5% of income. 1 millionaire would thus pay $30 to $50 thous in SS tax instead of the current amount at 7% or $4,550 Difference = 40,000(@4%) - 4,550 = 35,450 Joe Sixpack making $35,000 would see his taxes reduced from $2,450 at 7% to $1,400 at 4% or $1,050, thus 1 millionaire could offset the lost SS tax revenues of approx. 35 Joe Sixpacks. If the millionaire loses all his money, or Joe Sixpack wins the lottery- either one may or may not need Social Security income eventually. However, if the SS system reverts back to what its real intention was- a rainy day "granny" fund- rather than another entitlement program, then modern day robber barons like Bill Gates and Paul Allen would really contribute to the overall well being of the country rather than through egotistically driven philanthropy. Again off of my soap box. The soap box is again open to affirm or rebut. z