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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157520)	5/29/2003 11:59:38 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

<<BTW, there's another reason why Skeeter's Buffett argument is bogus - Buffett skewed the comparison with his secretary by including SS contributions in their effective tax rates. >> Now who's guilty of numbers trickery? <gg>

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157520)	5/30/2003 10:49:18 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

the problem is that everybody under 40 at best can hope for their money back while the older folks got a hell of a return. For those under 40, SS underperformance relative to any investment you can make including Nasdaq stocks in a bear mkt is an underperformer, in other words it is a tax. But it is worse than a tax, because it essentially takes from the less-well off socioeconomic groups (the young) to give to the wealthiest demographic group (the elderly). I have seen the demographic trends and the deficit, I doubt very seriously I will get much out of SS in 2030 when I need it to pay off. I've been contributing 12.5K for a decade now almost, compared to my parents $40/mo contribution. concordcoalition.org