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: gnuman who wrote (47390)	1/26/1999 8:57:00 AM
From: gnuman	Respond to of 1579697

"Big Brother Inside" privacy.org

To: gnuman who wrote (47390)	1/26/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1579697

Gene, OT, I'm well aware of Clintons plan. You are correct that the government has borrowed from SS... and now wants to pay back into SS with basic income tax. The government doesn't look at it as paying back anything though. Where does that end? You asked where the budget surplus will come from and will it be there. A lot of surplus is coming off the back of taxpayers who have been doing well in the market. Capital gains and dividends. Will this continue? This is where Clintons plan of investing government money into the market and driving it up comes in, guaranteeing more of a windfall for the budget surplus. All this off the backs of the "rich". Of course, once the Government satrts investing in private sector companies, it will gain more and more control of the private sector. Which is where the classic definition of Socialism comes into play. SO you actually have the people funding SS but through Corporations. Jim

To: gnuman who wrote (47390)	1/26/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: Joseph S. Lione	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579697

Gene: OTOTOT Social Security. you said that the $$$ in the Social Security Trust Fund (?) was paid in by the taxpayers. Actually, it was paid in by those covered by Social Security, not exactly the same group. Anyway, so what Clinton is saying is that we WILL get our Social Security, we just have to pay for it TWICE!!! And people think this is a fix?

To: gnuman who wrote (47390)	1/26/1999 1:53:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 1579697

Gene, The heart of the idea: To allow people to invest their pension money in stocks sounds OK, but if the government does it for you they will screw it up, as usual. The Chilean model has good aspects in that the people are permitted to choose their own shares and the funds are kept tax free and in Chilean jurisdiction until they retire and remove it and get taxed then. They will not permit certain stocks to be bought, but I do not know the full details. It does have the advantage in that it takes that cash out of the governments hands so they cannot play games with it, as that article suggests. It looks like this is a USA attempt to get some of the benefits of the Chilean model and yet keep the pork aspect alive??? Bill

To: gnuman who wrote (47390)	1/26/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579697

Jim McMannis, Gene Parrott, SSA MEDICARE OFF TOPIC. My uninvited opinion on SSA. SSA must be cut away from the federal budget. Taxation for SSA cannot continue to be tied to general operating budget with their current cross subsidies. If necessary, as a last resort, tax at the federal level and remit SSA tax portion to the money management team of the individuals choice for future payout. Most people in the 18-25 bracket don't want any part of SSA. I vote with them. The 53 year old tgptndr