Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living
longer. The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is
because the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that
amount don't contribute to increased future distributions.
Allowing people to pay into SS at higher income levels than they
can ever collect on totally throws out the idea that its a
"savings" plan as sold by FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS
tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several
times more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that
doesn't allow the gov't control over your money so it will never
fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped
by contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is
reduced at higher contribution levels, but again this is always
as it has been. Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people
to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of
things.

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then we'll talk. Fair enough?


I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.

I don't answer loaded questions.


It's a simple question. Just yes or no will do.