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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: upanddown who wrote (15265)	11/9/2004 4:40:31 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I'm glad somebody made that point -- that if they had invested the SS Trust fund rather than stolen it, a) it would have doubled, or more b) it would actually be there As Greenspan put it in his convoluted Fedspeak, the tax cut for the wealthy should stay, and to balance things out, SS must be gutted now. At least he's willing to be overt about the wealth transfer.

To: upanddown who wrote (15265)	11/9/2004 6:01:45 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 116555

Good point. Since the SS surplus has been used for General Fund spending, we should consider the SS tax above what is paid out as current benefits, as just another Federal income tax. It is probably the most regressive Federal tax and, as you point out, has transfered the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower and middle class. The new proposal, of forced savings accounts combined with 40% reduced benefits for those under 55, is also a tax shift. In this case it is shifting the burden from the current generation to future generations while at the same time reducing the benefits for future generations. I'm sure the Bush Administration will follow their standard pattern of proposing legislation. They will not release any of the details of their proposal in advance and they will try to ram the legislation through Congress before it can be properly scrutinized. If Americans under 55 become aware of the actual details, this proposal will be rejected. Details: the leaks suggest that 2% of taxable income will go into a "private" account. This is $800 per year for a worker earning $40K per year. This will be offset by a 40% reduction in benefits. Hopefully there will be adequate time to provide tables that show what type of return will be required on the $800 per year to make up for the 40% decline in benefits.

To: upanddown who wrote (15265)	11/9/2004 8:11:27 PM
From: valueminded	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Actually Democrats were/are no better - worse imo since they seem to think that making 200,000 a year qualifies as wealthy. I think if you want to bring up taxation of the wealthy, why not tax the truly wealthy. Say those with Net worths over 10,000,000 (including real estate, everything etc) pay at the highest marginal level for every dollar over that amount. After all, it would take someone earning 200,000 per year 50 years to accumulate that amount of money even if they spent nothing. Give me a break, do you think billionares actually paid 33% or 38% marginal rates on their way to that kind of worth. Maybe thats why most billionares were for Kerry. At any rate, as long as we want to "soak the rich" I think that we ought to include the truly rich in our soaking.