On 29 Nov 2005 13:08:07 -0800, "Terry Lomax"
wrote:


F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

SS payouts are based on "contributions." If we increase the
"contributions" from the rich, we'll just increase the
payouts to the rich. The only way to soak the rich with SS
taxes is to decouple the payouts from the "contributions" or
to institute a needs test. But the SS supporters are the
ones most opposed to doing either, as it would (further)
delegitimize SS.

Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about
$5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS.

Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help
SS's solvency?

(anti-rich and anti-baby boomer diatribes, snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/