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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (17151)	11/23/2002 9:46:55 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

A simpler solution is to raise the maximum base income on which the tax is collected.

To: Neocon who wrote (17151)	11/23/2002 9:43:43 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

<<The "trust fund" is an orderly way of accounting for future obligations. However, it is merely an accounting trick>> So then i'll ask you again: What was the point of Reagan raising the payroll taxes in 1983? Was it just a cruel hoax allowing him to raise taxes on mostly low wage workers? Why has SS been running surpluses since 1983? It wouldn't be to help pay fo tax cuts to upper income workers would it? After all, like you said, the "trust fund" is just an accounting trick. The extra payroll taxes people have been paying since 1983 are not a gimmick. <<The amount of debt held is not the primary consideration, it is the rate of redemption.>> Which i've pointed out is spread out over some 35 years, the length of a generation: the baby-boomers as coincidence would have it. << No one has said that Social Security was "in trouble" as of 2016 or 2017. No one has said that the obligations under the "trust fund" would not be met. What has been said is that future obligations are not covered by the "trust fund" after about 2040>> This is not what the President's commission said in its report. In 2041, when the so called trust fund runs out, won't most of the baby boomers be dead? Also SS uses far more pessimistic assumptions about average growth rates than does the CBO or OMB when they project budget surpluses and deficits. If the CBO and OMB numbers are closer to the truth, SS is flush for the next 75 years. If the SS projections for growth are accurate, we're in a lot of trouble economically speaking. The SS crisis is a lie. You only have to go to Social Security itself to see just how robust it is. Steve