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: TimF who wrote (329093)	3/16/2007 11:47:33 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575605

re: Its likely that most of the other 7.65% would go to wages, either from higher wages, or from more employment. Taxing the payout of wages is a disincentive to hiring labor or giving workers wages. You want more employment and higher wages, so why tax/punish companies for providing them? Ah, so none of the tax decrease would go to profits. re: SS just works. --------- Not well. It works perfectly as a social insurance program. You guys continually argue that it doesn't work as a retirement program. And that's not a surprise, since it isn't and was never intended to be a retirement program. A hammer doesn't work very well as a screwdriver. re: Return on investment might also be zero, or even negative from the perspective of the individual participating in SS. We've been through this. It's simple please pay attention... your ROI depends entirely on how long you live. Just like life insurance in reverse... you are better off if you live longer.