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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marc ultra who wrote (4656)	4/19/1998 1:34:00 AM
From: StockNovice	Respond to of 42834

Just to add to the information already posted: The taxes the man had to pay was $1700.00 and he was taxed on 35% of the Social Security Benefit (I believe as I did not hear the complete phone call). Also, Bob Brinker stated his position regarding wealthy people receiving Social Security. Bob said he felt that wealthy people even as wealthy as Ross Perot should still receive their Social Security checks even if they choose to give that money to charity.

To: marc ultra who wrote (4656)	4/19/1998 8:10:00 AM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

MarcW: RE:<the caller responding to Bob's questioning said he had over $2 million in assets and earning over $100,00 a year... I don't think Bob found his plight overly sympathetic and ... was not ready to take up a collection for him (to pay his extra tax of SS).> I heard the same context. My guess is that Brinker was very irritated by the caller's complaint. I'd guess his anger at a person of such means complaining about an extra $1,700 tax caused Brinker's temporary insanity and his cavalier response "I think ALL social security should be taxed - it's like pension income, isn't it?". Blinded by this anger, Brinker totally ignored the caller's correct retort "but Bob, even in my private pension at work, I'm not taxed on the aftertax dollars I contribute to the plan". Frankly, If I were Bob, I'd rethink this whole idea about 100% taxation of social security benefits and re-explain his position on today's program. Given Brinker's past positions on issues of taxation, it's hard to stomach that he really believes what he said on yesterday's program. 100% taxation of social security benefits will just bring on more class warfare conflict - maybe great headlines for grandstanding polititicians, but it won't solve anything. One nasty consequence of increasing taxes on social security benefits happens to those on company pensions that reduce employee entitlement in the amount of expected social security benefits. Those pension benefits are earned over the employee's working life. When you reduce social security benefits directly, the reduction would be made up by a larger pension benefit. However, when you reduce social security benefits dishonestly through back door increased taxation, the pension benefit remains the same and the employee's total pension plus aftertax social security benefit decrease at a time when the recipient is retired. It's changing the rules of the game after the game has been play - it stinks to high hell ! Instead of calling excess social security tax collections a "budget surplus" and spending it or giving it back to people in the form of a tax cut, The government should start investing social security tax collections like pension plans invest (ie.in a globally diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, and real estate) so confidence of the Generation X'rs will increase in the program they now believe won't be there for them. P