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: koan who wrote (759462)	12/24/2013 2:19:29 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575535

Ten claims to be a practicing, observant Christian, as well.

To: koan who wrote (759462)	12/24/2013 4:59:27 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longnshort Tenchusatsu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575535

Social security brought millions of old women and men out of horrible poverty Social Security sustains and enhances some lowlifes who didn't provide for their own old age. The force that brought Billions out of horrible poverty was enhancements in productive capacity that occurs best where government is limited to the protection of private property. A simple truth that won't penetrate your incredible stupidity.

To: koan who wrote (759462)	12/26/2013 6:12:33 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575535

Koan, SS was originally intended to be a forced-savings program where the more you put in, the more you get out. There is an element of wealth redistribution, but for the most part it was never intended to be the sole income source for retirees. Of course it's turning out that way for many people who lived most of their lives in or near poverty. These will be the people who will be getting more out of SS than they put in. And their numbers will continue to grow as the population ages and the notion that people don't have to save for their own retirements becomes ingrained from one generation to the next. Now you can argue that the FICA tax is a regressive one, and that the cap on SS revenues makes no sense. But that was part of the original design of SS, and the sharp progressive curve on income taxes makes up for it anyway. If you want to lift the cap on FICA taxes while keeping the general income tax curve the way it is, you would essentially be raising taxes on the "rich" by 12.5 percentage points. That's a HUGE hike, and it would be equivalent to that stupid 75% "tax on millionaires" that France is trying to pass. Of course, I don't expect you to get anything I just argued. Your counterarguments amount to nothing more than "I care more than you do." Real easy for you to "care" when you're not raising taxes on yourself. Tenchusatsu