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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (543385)	2/20/2004 4:50:22 PM
From: steve dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

And now it's ss the bastards want to cut, bet they aren't also planning an ss tax rate cut. They ought to extend the amount that ss is applied to of income, most of us never reach the current level anyway.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (543385)	2/20/2004 5:14:11 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Social Security is a Federal tax" It is an entitltement program (collected as a tax) that the recipient gets back. FICA is Federal Insurance Contribution Act. I'm all for eliminating it, like I said. But I am not for low income people paying no SS, and then collecting benefits. "how is it not a tax?" It is one of our MANY taxes. But you get it back. Whether it is spent now or not. Currently many are recieving SS and Medicare payments, and both are solvent for the next decade or two (at least they say). "Your argument is silly and arbitrary" Only to people like you who want MORE MONEY from our most successful private citizens. The argument was about whether 36% is enough. for the top 1%. It is not iyo, but instead of saying what you think it should be you convalute the argument with a different tax (FED INCOME TAX is what I was discussing). "You need to know how much income that 1% earn." One of the posters said 43%. Does that work for you? "people should pay taxes in proportion to their wealth" How do you calculate that? Do they pay on "their wealth" every year? Sounds a bit simplistic in print, and near impossible in reality. My view is our Gov't rakes in PLENTY of money. And the ones that you seem to want to get a free ride aren't helped by the villfication of the wealthy and successful Americans. Most curious on how you would calculate "wealth" though if you care to explain. "If Socialism doesn't work, why have Bush and the Republicans just added a prescription drug benefit to LBJ's Medicare?" To get demo votes.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (543385)	2/20/2004 5:17:43 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

money.cnn.com SS is a contribution to insurance, not a tax. I know everyone thinks otherwise and ....they're wrong.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (543385)	2/20/2004 5:26:07 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If you own 1% of the nation's wealth you should be paying 1% of the taxes. So you've changed the tax system to target capital formation, in essence you're taxing savings. I believe your idea would involve large changes in reporting etc. Would PERS or STRS pay taxes?