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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (26130)	12/17/2004 6:59:57 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

RE: "your benefits will be 40% less" My generation already has 33% reduction. 40% is only 7 pts less, in exchange for 16% decrease in taxes by privatization where you control 2% of your money. RE: "your generation pay 16% less tax which merely increases the Social Security shortfall due to the Baby Boom" This is where the two generations will be pitted against each other. Will the baby boomers scream to have every working SS dollar spent on them, or will they let 2% get redirected to the next generation? Given that our generation will be taking a 33% reduction (assuming no changes to SS) or a 40% reduction (with Bush's proposal), boomers should let 2% go to the next generation. I think boomer's benefits should be reduced by 2%. RE: "The really sick part about this scheme is that it doesn't solve the problem." Agreed, the debt exists no matter how you look at it. But a system that pays retires off of the base rather than the growth, is purely foolish. When did they start paying retires from current workers wages, rather than the savings growth? Regards, Amy J