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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (6147)	2/17/2009 10:34:26 AM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all income would be taxed and counted for benefits. Yes, a substantial SS tax increase will help, but will not solve the problem. Keeping in mind that 30 short years ago we were sold a massive SS tax increase as a long-term solution. Dedicate future proceeds of a revised estate tax to Social Security beginning in 2010. Present law gradually reduces the estate tax so that by 2009, only estates above $3.5 million ($7 million per couple) will be taxed. The tax should be frozen at that level, with the revenues directed toward Social Security. This runs absolutely, 180 degrees counter to what FDR proposed originally with respect to SS. When the program was created he insisted that it be self-funding out of SS tax revenue. Now, what you're talking about doing is confiscating all significant wealth aggregated by living persons in order to retire this debt. Even if you decided to confiscate accumulated wealth of Americans to pay the SS debt off, what do you do 30 years from now when the problem presents again? What then? You cannot keep confiscating people's money to deal with this problem. At some point, you insure the death of the nation. How can you not understand this? Add to that, the new programs instituted by this idiot in the White House, the health care debacle at Medicare, and this problem makes the current banking crisis look like a walk in the park. Improve the return on Social Security funds by investing part of them in equities Exactly what Bush tried to do. Precisely. And you all bitched about it and the Dems blocked it.

To: John Koligman who wrote (6147)	2/17/2009 1:54:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Together, these three adjustments—each desirable in itself—would eliminate the 75-year projected shortfall. "Desirable in itself" is debatable. Which doesn't mean I wouldn't support any of the ideas, but the whole package isn't umitigated good all the way around like Ball seems to think. Eliminating the projected shortfall isn't eliminating the real problem. Other mechanisms could also eliminate the shortfall as well, but this plan is designed to avoid pain only on the retirees. It just puts the pain on those paying for the program. Well it might reduce the overall pain by - "Improve the return on Social Security funds by investing part of them in equities, as just about all other public and private pension plans do". I do support this general type of change, but its not without risk and problems. Imagine a lot of SS had moved to stocks at the peak of the tech bubble... Also increased federal ownership of private corporations is somewhat problematic. As for "Dedicate future proceeds of a revised estate tax to Social Security beginning in 2010. Present law gradually reduces the estate tax so that by 2009, only estates above $3.5 million ($7 million per couple) will be taxed. The tax should be frozen at that level, with the revenues directed toward Social Security." That's taking a general revenue tax and applying it to SS, you close a hole in SS, by opening up one in the rest of the budget, to the extent it increases revenue at all its a tax increase, not "desirable in itself". We need to reduce the cost of SS and Medicare. Increasing the retirement age would be a good start.