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 Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (25972)	2/7/2005 6:54:25 PM
From: Colin H	Respond to of 110194

I believe it is not a flat tax system but rather a regressive tax system because it exists for those on the bottom end of the wealth spectrum. Social Security was devised for "the people" as opposed to "bully". Thus the burden falls on "the people" to pay for their retirement. Seems fair! What they did not know is "bully" would be running out the back door with their retirement money in the form of government contracts, etc. And soon, probably, a lot more people will be walking out the front door with SS money.

To: Tommaso who wrote (25972)	2/7/2005 7:17:30 PM
From: Roads End	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

The system is designed so the more you pay in to it the greater the payout. Uncapping the ceiling on SS would only require paying out more to those paying more in. Of course that begs more rule changes which basically leads to means testing.

To: Tommaso who wrote (25972)	2/7/2005 7:26:46 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

I think the cap only would need to be lifted to 96k or 100k, not capless, to eliminate the projected shortfall. It doesn't really matter how much Bush campaigns, he's shown that the American public will buy into his sermons no matter what, and so they will gladly turn over their security to the Enron investment bankers et al. As Bush has been saying, it's a screw your grandchildren proposal -- he is saying that benefits will be reduced at some future date, and that taxes won't go up for anybody. This way his handlers, the wealthy, will not abandon him, and the elderly won't either because if you are 55 already then it will be your children and grandchildren, not you, who will absorb downward "adjustment." This crowd has been quite happy to push off onto tomorrow what they couldn't pay for today, or ever. My hope is that the "debate" wrangles on long enough that the reality that SS is not a serious problem at this point but that Medicare really is in crisis will emerge. Then the shallow pated sheeple hanging on Bush's every statistical lie will perhaps ponder why Medicare isn't being looked at yet SS, with it's very far off projection of shortfall, is being hammered on constantly against a backdrop of a hundred million dollars of impetus from Wall Streeters. But I doubt it.

To: Tommaso who wrote (25972)	2/7/2005 8:33:42 PM
From: Larry S.	Respond to of 110194

Tommaso, I don't know that there is problem and wouldn't be foolish enough to attempt to predict what is going to happen 45 years from now. I haven't calculated the additional revenue that would come from eliminating the cap on the SS tax; but it would be substantial. Our income distribution has become increasingly skewed in the past twenty years. I have never looked into what motivated the cap. I suspect that it was the result of the thought that the plan has some pension plan aspects to it and that higher paid workers do not need the benefit of additional benefits. Note that, while individual benefits are not directly related to individual contributions or earnings, they are larger for those who contribute the maximum or near than those who contribute less. The Cato Website provides a calculator that estimates the benefits as a function of retirement age and earnings and you use it get a feel for the benefit calculation. Cato's calculator is easier to use than the estimator on the SS website. This makes it a social program in my mind but, if many in Congress at the time were thinking of its pension aspect, it is not surprising to me that the cap was established. One aspect that I have looked at is the cost of making a transition from our present pay-as-you-go plan to a savings for pension plan. It would be prohibitive and, in my view not worth the pain regardless of how it is structured.