SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (84734)10/31/2000 3:00:48 PM
From: bosquedog  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
 
I suspect the cost of administering a program that excluded certain wealth levels might cost more than the benefits saved. Additionally, SS is partially taxed for some of those people that you feel are not entitled to a program they were forced to pay into. However, I still do not understand your comment about people receiving SS as retirement without having paid in (unless you are referring to those that married someone) being much of an issue going forward. Could you explain that comment?



To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (84734)10/31/2000 7:40:01 PM
From: Mike M2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
 
Skeeter, it seems like you are a mean spirited Gingrinch supporter -vbg- ho ho ho Two problems with SS one is worker/ recipient ratio has been in a downtrend for a long time . ratio was 16/1 at inception presently 3/1 - I THINK projected to be 2/1 in 20 years. The other problem is people are living longer . Bottom line is the elligibility age will be raised and benfits reduced in the future. Mike


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News