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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (159892)	10/24/2008 4:22:28 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 306849

That's what the 'crats intend to do. Should smash Lil Guy plenty.

To: neolib who wrote (159892)	10/24/2008 4:34:33 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 306849

It would actually do two things: 1) Greatly lower FICA rates, since the FICA base would go up hugely. 2) Make it clear the the distinction between FICA tax and SS use vs the general budget are non-existant. The government has already be operating this way on the spending side, so they might as well make it clear on the collection side as well.

To: neolib who wrote (159892)	10/24/2008 4:52:33 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Change the relationship of schedule SE relative to Form 1040. In particular, make the starting point for the SE computations be 1040 line 22. End of problem. Well all I can say is that the original objections to a social insurance program like SS feared exactly this end result. They feared that people would forget why it was implemented in the first place, would see it as a general tax instead of a insurance premium paid to the government in order to cover the loss of income due to the inability to work either from old age or disability. Passive income doesn't necessarily stop when the person retires or becomes disabled. Making passive income subject to the tax would have the effect that everyone who pays FICA on passive income would continue to receive the passive income as well as receive the SS benefit in retirement since your payout depends on what you pay in! This would happen unless they break the link between premiums paid in and benefits received which is where your plan would be headed. I would support replacing FICA with mandatory retirement savings plans with an insurance element as long as the government no longer ran them. I think, if offered, millions of Americans would pay a large lump sum just to opt out of SS.