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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 10K a day who wrote (43806)	4/30/2005 1:12:09 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

In my mind it's still .0751 because that is just an easy number to remember....Would prob solve the prob too just changing the deduction to .0752.... That's the way I think of it as well. Old foggie, I guess... <s>. I'm sure there's a magic number, I don't know what it is. You could cover the shortfall by getting rid of the cap as well. But either of those is "raising taxes" which is heresy to conservatives. They don't believe in actually paying for what the government spends. On the other hand, Bush is proposing that we start paying out SS benefits to Mexicans that work in the US. But he doesn't mention that when he talks about fixing SS. He keeps that topic handy for when President Fox is down at the ranch. In broad terms, I think the way to fix SS is a combination of decreasing benefits by delaying when the recipient gets his retirment benefit; increasing the rate; and raising the cap. Ball park....I'd raise the cap to cover 2/3 of the necessary inlays; and 1/6 each from a delay and increased rate. I object to means testing. If you put in, you should receive a benefit. I don't know how that computes out, but that's the direction I would head in. jttmab