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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JHP who wrote (84731)	10/31/2000 1:57:09 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

jhp, my last post on this issue as we don't seem to be bridging the gap between what i'm communicating and what you are understanding about what i'm communicating. >>SS has helped plenty of children in this country. << yes, and it should continue to do so as long as those children don't have a BIG income. if they have a big income then they don't need the money and any marginal help is minimal. it isn't minimal for those children REALLY in need that don't get what they could. >>My family certainly has benefitted and continues to do so.<< and if my family had a need then i'd hope ss was there. helping out the needy is a worthy cause and i'm proud of programs that do so. if my family is sitting on a couple hundred million $$$ then i don't think my family should get ss and i don't think someone making $6.50 and hour supporting 2 kids (who don't get ss!) should transfer their wealth to me or anybody else. this IS happening as we speak and you are supporting this. i don't. you have to look at the BIG picture. you can't just look at personal benefits. there is no free lunch. for all the benefits you receive, somebody loses benefits. you sound like your family receives more benefits than they lose through the tax. that is ok, however, imho, you ought to NEED those benefits to reap more than you sow. if there is NEED, great! :-) should the loser be a $6.50/ hr parent of two who pays a much higher % ss than bill gates? your answer is yes, the poor guy should pay a higher %. my answer is that is wrong. ss is entirely too regressive a tax, imho. ss isn't wrong, per se. the current administration of the program is whacked. hey, keep my ss tax just as it is. i'm willing to write it off. just don't bury the $6.50 an hour guy in ss taxes. i would support a this change vigorously even if i didn't benefit financially. i support it even if it cost me more $$$ as made more money than the current system. principle, not politics and not self interest.

To: JHP who wrote (84731)	10/31/2000 6:16:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

JHP, social security is very much like a ponzi scheme. It takes money from people now and pays them back with money it takes from others later (with the hope that they will in turn get more money back). It has not collapsed because 1 - the government can force people in to the system, 2 - the paybacks are delayed and some people die before they get much out, 3 - population growth, and 4 - per capita economic growth. #2 is still an important factor but people are living longer. #3 is decreaseing in the US, and the combination of people living longer and decreaseing population growth makes for less and less new workers to pay for each retiree. If #4 doesn't come through strongly the whole thing could collapse at some point. One of the biggest problems with SS is that the money isn't invested in anything that has a real rate of return. It is invested in IOUs that the government makes to itself. There is no real trust fund to draw money out of when the baby boomers retire. The money will have to come from other taxes. If the economy does not continue to grow at a decent clip things will get ugly. Tim