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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188696)	6/7/2006 3:17:54 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So it's an additional tax, above and beyond all the other taxes we pay, right?? And on top of that, it's debt.. Debt that has to be paid back by future generations? Why not permit taxpayers the right to use that excess to be invested in a private IRA? It's always been a tax. Early in the Bush Administration they floated the idea that SS tax wasn't really a tax, it was a "contribution" to a pension fund. Enough people laughed at that idea that they took it off the table. But it's always been a tax and a regressive tax at that. I heard the head of SS once on NPR point out that most people pay more in SS tax in their lifetime than Federal taxes. FWIW. Also, it's not purely a pension plan as reformists like to portray it. It's a pension plan, disability plan and life insurance rolled up into one package. When you calculate similar private pension, disability insurance and life insurance policies, SS isn't a financial package. It's conservative, but conservative isn't bad. At least you don't believe in a SS "lock box".. There were plenty of people that were floating the "lock box" spin around. Both sides of the aisle. Bush even promised to not spend SS collections if he were elected Pres. Then he took a trip to WV and "discovered" it was all IOUs. The initial idea of using SS revenues in the Federal budget [to hide the deficit] was a stroke of "genius" perpetrated by Moynihan and Dole. Why not permit taxpayers the right to use that excess to be invested in a private IRA? Reform doesn't eliminate the current liability. Transition costs are the issue and where do you get the transition costs from? The private IRA approach immediately tells me that your tossing out the disability and life insurance components of SS. We can certainly take the approach of screw 'em if people don't plan their financial futures properly, but are we really going to take that attitude with a bunch of old people living on the street or are we as a society going to pick up the tab. I was walking through the mall last week [5:00 p.m.], going by the food court. Maybe a couple of dozen food establishments. Strictly paying attention to the age of the employees. I saw two people of high school age. The majority were clearly in the 30-50 age bracket; the remainder in their 20s. All the food court cleaning staff were over 30. What would you guess their investment portfolios looks like? How would it change if they could invest half of their SS contribution in a private IRA? One way or another we're going to be stuck with these people when they get old. jttmab