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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10043)	3/13/2005 10:41:55 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362292

Lets imagine that there are two aspects to the Social Insurance program: the safety net (or insurance portion) and the retirement plan (that can be inherited). If those two pieces exist (I don't think they do for the lower end - but maybe for the higher end), then lets get rid of the inherited portion! To get rid of the inherited portion, we can reduce some benefits and also reduce the payroll tax. That way people can keep and invest their own money. But we need to keep the safety net portion ...

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10043)	3/14/2005 6:02:16 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362292

What you are describing is something altogether different from the intended purpose of social security. SS was never intended to be a savings device or a way to pass on wealth to your children. What it is intended for is to ensure that when we are old and no longer capable of working, we don't have to live on the street and hunt for scraps of food in garbage cans. I think SS can be changed to better fulfill that function (it can be made less expensive and less wasteful, like all government programs), but the ability to pass wealth onto your children does nothing to fulfill the purpose of SS.