![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? Mike wrote: I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an economic expert? Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush Demands ATC User Fees | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 3 | May 6th 08 12:56 AM |
Bush Spinning Airline Delays To Support User Fees | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | November 20th 07 05:26 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Owning | 36 | October 1st 07 05:14 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Piloting | 35 | August 4th 07 02:09 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Home Built | 35 | August 4th 07 02:09 PM |