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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (3416)	2/20/2004 7:40:47 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

nobody after the baby boom gets anything from FICA so imho it is a tax. The republicans are always trying to claim the highly regressive and unfair fica is "not a tax".

To: tonto who wrote (3416)	2/20/2004 8:17:46 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

This statement with regards to social security is false: "In fact the lowest earners gain the most on that end." And here is why: The true purpose of social security is to provide a "safety net" for the elderly poor. This was not out of compassion (although that was how it was sold to the unwashed) but to prevent social instability. A stable society benefits the wealthy. Some naive people will present analysis that shows poor workers receive a better return on their FICA payments. So what? That ignores the hidden social costs. The primary beneficiaries of social security are the people that pay the least into the system.