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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (200206)	9/4/2004 11:39:43 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573462

Once again, it comes down to values... to be sustainable, Social Security requires us to make two assumptions -- one, that most of the time, each generation will be a bit bigger than the one before (the Baby Boom was an exception), and that it's acceptable to tax wealthier people to help support those who are less well-to-do. You haven't studied much math or risk management, have you? I haven't examined Kerry's stance on Social Security (though thanks for reminding me, I should and will), but I can be fairly confident that he isn't going to be pushing private savings accounts at the expense of the traditional system. Yet, you cited Kerry's plans for SS as one of the reasons you're going to vote for him? Where's the sense in that? The idea that you're going to raise taxes to handle it reflects how little you know about it. 50 years from now, to sustain SS's benefits, you would need a tax rate approaching 50% JUST TO HANDLE SS. Add Federal & State income taxes on top of that -- you have a combined tax rate of 85%. You really think you want an 85% tax rate for your children? Do the words "tax revolt" mean anythig to you?

To: SilentZ who wrote (200206)	9/7/2004 3:35:22 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573462

Z, Once again, it comes down to values... to be sustainable, Social Security requires us to make two assumptions -- one, that most of the time, each generation will be a bit bigger than the one before (the Baby Boom was an exception), and that it's acceptable to tax wealthier people to help support those who are less well-to-do. A person who knew a thing or two about Social Security, late Senator Moynihan of New York urged Democrats to resist the temptation to turn Social Security into welfare, becasue that would kill it. We can safely assume he knows more about Social Security than you do, the question is: Do you want to kill Social Security? The second point there is the main issue. Social Security does not work if everyone pays in at the same rate and there's a cap on how much income can be taxed per person. More welfare, another nail in the coffin? I feel it's OK, even noble, to have the wealthy pay more There is always a justification why other guy should pay more... I haven't examined Kerry's stance on Social Security (though thanks for reminding me, I should and will), but I can be fairly confident that he isn't going to be pushing private savings accounts at the expense of the traditional system. Kerry is not planning on cutting benefits, which someone else in the know, Alan Greenspan just talked about. Anyway you look at Social Security, it doesn't add up, reforms have to be made, and Kerry doesn't want to change a thing as far as I know. Joe