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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (430059)	7/21/2003 3:38:15 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<< Just because the demographics have changed, why should today's younger workers have to face a much higher tax burden than previous generations of workers?>> That was the point of this over $1 trillion in surpluses SS has been running since the 80's, so the next generation wouldn't have a higher tax burden. <<As you have already pointed out, the first generation of beneficiaries paid nothing into the system and received full benefits. How is that fair?>> It also pays widows, orphans and the disabled who didn't pay in. Property taxes from childless property owners fund the education of mult-children renters. How is that fair? Being against social welfare and social insurance wealth transfers is a legitimate point of view. But considering how reluctant Republicans are to argue it straightforwardly, i'd say it's a very unpopular point of view with the voters. <<But only if these assets are _independently_ invested and administered by an entity that has the interests of the beneficiaries as their sole priority.>> The projections of SS solvency are made by the SS Trustees which includes members of the Bush cabinet. <<It wouldn't even be an issue if the SS assets were independently invested and administered.>> We've had this conversation before. But as long as the nation is running deficits, which it has virturally the whole time since SS started running surpluses in the 80's, it makes more sense to borrow the money from ourselves than it does to borrow that much more from the private sector. You don't want to take any more money out of the capital pool than you have to. <<Even if you thought that long-term Treasury debt _is_ a good investment, you shouldn't put _all_ of your assets into it! That is a violation of any reasonable long-term investment strategy which should include diversification.>> Well as i've said: SS isn't an investment. It's a transfer of wealth between generations. And the surpluses it's currently running are best loaned to ourselves instead of us borrowing even more from overseas and the private sector. <<I will only support tax increases if the government fully admits to its past fraudulent behavior and implements fundamental reforms. Until such time, I prefer tax cuts regardless of the impact on the budget deficit. Just my opinion...>> At least your position is coherent and well argued. It may even be the Bush strategy: starve the government into efficiency with unsupportable tax cuts. But with the way spending is soaring, it gets a little murky. Steve