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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pete Schueler who wrote (13958)	6/29/1998 8:00:00 PM
From: John Lacelle	Respond to of 116795

Pete, That is a good point about the income level effect of Social Security. The only thing that really bugs me is that people who earn super amounts of money (i.e. Michael Jordan @100 million per year) pay only about 0.0001% of their income into Social Security while most people pay 6.2% (matched by employer) for a total of 12.4%. It seems grossly unfair that the less money you earn the greater a percentage of your income gets taken away by big brother uh, I mean the government. On a side note, I noticed that the sniveling Democrats are complaining again about Newt Gingriches plan to lower Capital Gains taxes from 20% to 15%. They claim that this is a taxbreak for the rich. However, what they don't tell you is that 50% of the tax savings would go to people who earn less than $50,000 per year. The Democrats always talk the talk about raising taxes on rich people so why don't they do it? They could start by ending the $65,000 dollar earnings cap on Social Security. I would like to see Ted Kennedy suddenly start paying the same rate as the rest of us. I bet he would squeel like a pig if he suddenly had to pay what the rest of us pay. -John