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 (200208)	9/4/2004 12:07:55 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573642

>> it's closer to mine than Bush's is. Do you know what Bush's is? SS has lasted for over 60 years and is still around. Even the most pessimistic estimates I've seen project it as viable for another 20-30 years. Look, I understand you're only 24 (and therefore still take a fairly short view of some things, as youth will cause people to do sometimes). But surely, you don't think 20-30 years is an appropriate planning horizon for Social Security? What are you going to do 20-30 years from now when it is NOT viable any longer? Just tell those who are receiving benefits, "Sorry, you don't get your check this month?" or those who are paying into the system, "Well, we didn't actually SAVE your money for YOU". Your thinking is totally irrational. >> People have not paid 85% taxes during that period. Do yourself a favor and find out something about this problem. Because right now, you are worse than clueless about it. Your statements indicate an unbelievable level of ignorance for a person who seems reasonably intelligent, on what may be the most important subject you can dream up. I'm serious about this. You really are illustrating an unbelievable indifference to a tremendously important problem. I'm going to give you a clue. This isn't my problem, it is your's, and that of my children. You can't tax your way out of it. You have to GROW your way out of it. And you can't GROW your way out of it at an average yield in the 2 or 3% range. You have GOT to get some of that money into the markets where it can earn a reasonable return. If you have had "plenty" of math, you undoubtedly know about exponential functions. Compound interest is an exponential function. You may want to read the following sentence a couple of times: Each $1,000 invested at 3% interest will grow to $19,219 in 100 years. That same $1,000 invested at 7% interest will grow to $867,716. Over 50 years, it is $4,384 vs. $29,457. This should be a hint to you as to the ONLY way out of the social security crisis. More taxes does not solve the problem. Only a higher growth rate does.

To: SilentZ who wrote (200208)	9/4/2004 12:16:18 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573642

"we're paying something like the second-lowest overall rate in taxes of any industrialized country." Which one is lower?

To: SilentZ who wrote (200208)	9/4/2004 12:40:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573642

Remember, at this point, we're paying something like the second-lowest overall rate in taxes of any industrialized country. As someone who knows a little about taxation, I can say that this is an impossible statement to either support or refute. What is an "overall rate of tax"? Individual taxes? Do you count sales taxes we pay on every nickel we spend? State income taxes? Property taxes? What about corporate taxes (since economically, corporations don't pay taxes, there merely pass them on to their customers)? Many countries have VATs which totally make their systems incomparable to ours. Bottom line: Your statement is totally unsupportable and frankly, impossible to make any sense out of. Assuming, arguendo, that you do want to make the argument based on individual tax rates, try these: USA 0-35% Canada 31% Czech Republic 15-32% France 10-54% Egypt 20% Finland 12-35% Ireland 20-42% Italy 23-45% Japan 10-37% Clearly, your statement can't account for differences in tax structure (for example, deductions or rate graduations). However, in looking at raw tax rates, there is obviously a significant number of countries with rates on either side of ours.

To: SilentZ who wrote (200208)	9/7/2004 3:40:54 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 1573642

Z, SS has lasted for over 60 years and is still around. Even the most pessimistic estimates I've seen project it as viable for another 20-30 years. People have not paid 85% taxes during that period. You may want to check into how much people actually paid in the past (percentage, cap) vs. what we pay today, and just try to project the rate of increase... As far as SS being viable for another 20-30 years, BTW, when are you retiring? Are you content with paying for 20-30 through your nose with no guarantees of what if anything you will ever receive? Joe