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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (25555)	1/21/2004 3:56:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793752

You still could call it insurance rather than welfare and the words have some meaning to the low income folks who get it. I wouldn't want to do that. Part of the problem now is the notion that it's a retirement savings system. We'd have to blow that out of the water. Maybe not out of the box, but we'd have to. There has to be at least a modicum of shame in being on the dole. Not oppressive shame, but not a sense of entitlement. I would exempt as a starter the first 20k and raise the bar to 100k. Disagree with that, too. I'd like to see everyone pay some income tax, even if it's only fifty bucks a year. If you pay in, you have more of a stake, more of a sense of ownership. The problem is with income tax that it would not be cost effective to collect such small sums. With the payroll tax, collection is extremely cost effective so we should take advantage of that. Besides, it's the folks who earn so little who are the ones most likely to collect and collect disproportionately when they retire. They should pay. Particularly if we keep calling it insurance.