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: Road Walker who wrote (363039)	12/16/2007 12:24:21 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586535

I think they should just remove the cap entirely. Anyone that makes more than 91k/yr can easily afford it. Then make whatever adjustments that are needed beyond that. If anything, they should put a high floor on the tax without removing eligibility for benefits. That small tax is very onerous on the poor, and for self-employed people starting a business, who have to pay both halves of it and often lose money for a couple of years starting out.

To: Road Walker who wrote (363039)	12/27/2007 4:17:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586535

Increasing the tax rate, and applying it to a much larger part of people's income amounts to a very large tax increase, not an easy or painless solution, but rather a painful and harmful one. Increasing the retirement age slowly would probably be much less painful, but would still be somewhat difficult. It is 90% a cyclical issue. Not in the long run. alejandrogonzalez.typepad.com And yes as you say in your reply to my other post with this link, that's a big range, which reflects a lot of uncertainty. But the midpoint keeps getting worse past 2040, and the high end is around 9.5% of our GDP.