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: GraceZ who wrote (21703)	1/18/2005 9:53:56 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 116555

Excellent point. Personally I think retirement insurance should be partially funded out of the General Fund or at least taxed on all sources of income. Why do we tax an $8 an hour worker 12.4% (including the employers portion)? Talk about a high tax on labor. For those that have studied the 1930s, Retirement Insurance was a very valuable tool to prevent a revolution in America. Lowenstein gives a nice history lesson on this issue. nytimes.com I'm all for reform, but with retirement insurance, everyone wins. From my post: calculatedrisk.blogspot.com For the working poor and lower middle class, Social Security provides the clear benefit of direct safety net payments. For the middle class, they are able to take more risk with their other investments. Although some have argued, probably correctly, that this lowers savings in America, it also encourages risk taking, investment and consumption – all positives for the economy. For the upper middle class and the wealthy the primary benefit is a stable society. And stability leads to better overall economic performance. Everyone wins. Take the Financially Healthy (mostly the higher middle class and wealthy) out of the insurance plan, even partially, and everyone loses.