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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (129601)	2/28/2001 10:19:41 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769667

Well, you're wrong. The NYTimes is confused and/or just shilling for the Dems. Or are the Dems shilling for the NYTimes? The "payroll tax" is supposed to be a pension equivalent and a more complete analysis would show that low-income workers get a far better return/deal in that area too when you look at input vs. payout. Since it's a Dem-created system, every payer gets the shaft, the more "wealthy" just more so. SS is already actuarially unsound, so any tax cut there would be unbalanced. The solution is to dump the SS system and let people invest themselves. But the NYTimes would oppose both a payroll tax cut or SS reform, they're just trying to create a diversion from the Bush plan with a dishonest analysis. It cannot be disputed that Bush's plan makes the income tax more progressive, not less. Read the WSJ for news and analysis, the NYTimes for humor and the ads.