LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 4,647
0 members and 4,647 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-19-2004, 11:24 AM   #11
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Pot to kettle: You're black!

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not disagreeing with what you say. However, I think that the expenditure of supporting the people in paragraph 1 would be lower overall than the cost of paying social security to all recipients under the current system.

I agree with your assessment of paragraph2, which is why I am not running for Congress.
One of my prescriptions for social security would be on the funding side rather than the expenditure side. I think the fact that social security is funded solely from the wage base has a decided impact on our competitiveness (it's a cost business abroad often don't bear) and results in a regressive tax. I'd take the cap off and apply the tax to unearned income as well, and either use the additional funds to lower the tax rate or to remove the employer side wage tax. Of course, Moynihan fought this battle for years, with very little to show, so I'm probably not heading for Congress, either.
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.