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 : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (137)	6/16/2005 7:50:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 492

But I'll confess the other part is I think people deserve to retire at 65, if they want to. No one is arguing that people shouldn't be able to retire at 65. I am saying that there isn't some right to demand that the public support you from any particular age, for the rest of your life. If the country decides to provide some support for older people it could start at 50 or at 90. Pragmatic considerations should play a big role in determining when the support starts. Since the support is very expensive, and since people keep living longer, I don't think we should pick any age (even one much later then the current Social Security retirement age) and say from this point we will support people now, in 10 years from now, in 50 years from now... I think the age should adjust to changing human life spans and demographics. I could easily endorse that. In fact, why cap it at all. My guess is that with no cap on FICA, you wouldn't need a FICA tax increase at all. How many people earn over $1mil in wages? Not many. Plenty of people make over $1mil a year (a small percentage but still a good number), but not many of them get that much in wages. Maybe CEO's and other high corporate officials but they would just change there compensation to get more stock options or other forms of compensation to avoid paying the new tax. I don't actually endorse increasing the cap to a million. I was just putting the idea out there. The only way I would really seriously consider supporting it is in exchange of a FICA tax rate reduction. Otherwise you are getting a huge tax increase, and there is just about no way I will support any large tax increase. I don't only think it would be wrong (ideology) but I think it would have a very bad practical effect (pragmatic reason for being against it). Or I might also support eliminating the CAP in exchange for a simple flat income tax at a lower level then the average current rate. The rich get socked with a huge FICA tax increase but they also get a big incomes tax cut. Another idea would be to eliminate FICA entirely and just make one flat tax rate. It would have a similar net effect to the combination of eliminating the FICA limit while at the same time lowering incomes tax rates. It would probably be better for the working poor because they might have income that fits within the deductible and pay no taxes at all. (It wouldn't have much effect at all on the non-working poor.) There has been a lot of discussion, on this thread and elsewhere, that we need a final solution to SS. All the shortfall (and surplus) estimates are based on pure guesses. We review the discretionary budget every year and make adjustments, certainly we could review the non-discretionary budget every 5-10 years, and make adjustments. It's not a "fix it now or die" situation... in fact I suspect that we will overshoot on the revenue that is actually needed. I think adjustments every 5 or 10 years are a good idea, but I would like some more fundamental reform within the next 10 or preferably 5 or less years, and tweaks can be made from there. I currently don't really like the basic structure of the program. Of course its not like we are starting from scratch and can try to design the ideal program with no worry about any current structure or current claims. Any transition from the current structure will not be simple. Tim