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: Roads End who wrote (26052)	2/8/2005 2:47:12 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 110194

My answer to that is that SS was never designed to punitive, it was designed to be "insurance" against the loss of one's ability to make a wage. To include "passive" income like dividends and rental income would be a serious change in the original intent. If I'm disabled tomorrow, I still can collect the rent on my rental properties and will continue to receive dividends from my passive investments. So there is no need to insure that income. What might be needed is more stricter enforcement of what is "passive" and what is active. Years ago it was rumored that the IRS would crack down on people paying themselves below market wages to avoid payroll taxes. It never came and there is a lot of abuse. I just shake my head when a client tells me they pay themselves less than their junior office assistant while they rake in 180k in dividend payments from their biz. It wouldn't stand up in a serious audit, yet the audit never comes. I tell them not to go through a nasty divorce or make a bad firing because it is up to them to prove they pay themselves a "market" rate.