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: Road Walker who wrote (214663)	1/11/2005 8:12:53 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572778

Check this out, John. We've both been saying that the system needs to be fixed. Whether you like Bush's fix or not is a different issue. Anyway, here's more evidence that a fix will require some kind of increase in taxes. This article quantifies what a fix would cost. Thought you would be interested, since you advocate just that: yahoo.reuters.com Andrew Biggs, associate commissioner at the Social Security Administration, told the forum a payroll tax rise from 12.5 percent to 16 percent would eliminate "forever" a projected $10.5 trillion financing gap. But he added, "That's obviously a big increase that people wouldn't like to pay." Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has floated a proposal to raise the income level subject to Social Security tax from $90,000 now to as much as $200,000 to help pay for the transition costs of adding personal accounts. So I think we are in agreement on the fact that the system will run through all its reserves and to fix it, you need some kind of increase in taxes or reduction in benefits. At least that's some common ground. :) Where we differ is that you like the socialistic nature of the current program and you like that it acts as an insurance program for seniors. So you want to keep the nature of the system as is, but institute just those fixes required to ensure it continues to be self-sustaining. At least, I think that summarizes your position. That is where our common ground ends. I would prefer to see a system that is more market oriented and places more empowerment in the hands of individuals so that those individuals have the opportunity to earn an even better retirement through the use of modern financial principles.