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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288728)	5/20/2006 3:58:52 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571931

kinda reminds me of the taxes on cigarettes... we must tax them to stop their use since they are killing people, yet if they are so bad, why not ban them? $$$$=power for politicians

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288728)	5/20/2006 4:15:18 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571931

re: the real problem is that Social Security receipients are getting more in benefits than they put into the system. That all depends. If I die at 61 and 364 days, I don't get a penny, and I put in since I was 15 years old. If a child loses it's father to an accident, they start collecting immediately, even though they haven't put in a dime. I pay taxes for roads that I never drive on. I pay taxes to support a war I don't believe in. I pay taxes for schools, and I don't have kids. It's called society. re: One problem I have with raising the FICA cap is that it's still a regressive tax. If we're going to fund the system from those with the means, then let's eliminate the FICA cap. Tax the rich? Are you being sarcastic or did the doc change your prescription?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288728)	5/20/2006 4:39:23 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571931

Social Security pays out more than we put in? I've never heard that before. How could that be? I heard you get back what you put in, and everything is done very conservatively accumulating very low interest rates. That's the excuse Bush used when he wanted to privatize Social Security and hand it over to his Wall Street cronies, piece by piece. Know who Bush's biggest contributor is since Enron went under? Not Exxon but MBNA. Why? Because they want to privatize Social Security, and other issues. Privatizing social security might be the biggest ripoff in world history. The energy gouging is #1 now, but SS privatization could swamp it. Remember, that privatization really means is that corporations run things, and they are in the business of taking as much out of it as they can in the way of profits. So that would gradually kill SS altogether. And if we had a major stock market crash that would expedite the disaster.