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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (3430)	10/23/2006 12:37:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

It suddenly all made sense. <g> I've heard that one before, but its still somewhat funny, and it has a bit of truth to it. In this case however the government's applied a different definition to contribution not to tax. The government calls the money both "contributions" and "taxes" but "taxes" is really the more accurate term because your required to pay. And the term "trust fund" is mostly misleading as well. If you look at things purely from the perspective of the SSA then there is a trust fund. It doe own bonds, but then remember my analogy where might right pocked owns an IOU. If the asset is exactly equal to the obligation, you can either consider yourself as having both, or you can net out both and say you have nothing. From the perspective of the government as a whole, or the country as a whole, it makes more sense to net them out and say there is, and never has been, a trust fund. But whatever word you use it doesn't really change the reality of the situation.