"Terry Lomax" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Friggin moron.

I'm all for removing the cap on contributions -- with the single
caveat that the cap on benefits be removed too.

If I pay 28,000,000 a year into it, you can be damned sure
it ain't fair to give me the same lousy benefit you'll be
collecting.

Sure, remove the cap -- on both the contribution *AND*
the benefit.

Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.