Easy fix for SS. Raise the cap.

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

As a republican, I am against raising taxes. But that's because of a
complete lack of control on politicians parts. I can't see FEDERAL funding a
lot of what the fed funds now. Most things should be handled by the
state\local taxes. Let the taxes be collected at the state\local level where
the politicians are close enough for me to slap!

Example, we're pumping more into education than we have in US history and
the children are getting dumber by the minute. That's why we homeschool. The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results. She's 6 years old, is writing cursive better
than I, is adding double digit number (46+87 and such that require her to
carry over a number) and can name you the top Bush administration officials!
She also doesn't like Al Gore, she says he's talks mean (even children can
pick up on deconstructive speech). Is this because of curriculum, no. It's
because I'm INVOLVED in her education. Most parents are more concerned about
that new Suburban, boat or second house than they are about actually going
to find out WHO their child's teachers are and WHAT their child needs help
with. In addition, any attempt to enforce discipline in school is met by the
ACLU and the aforementioned parents. It seems these parents don't want
anyone doing a better job than they are. What happened to responsibility?

What does this mean? We're throwing money at a problem that money won't fix.

There IS NO SS savings account, so the whole "No Money by 2035" is
misleading at best.

As is the "National Debt". National Debt is a forecast based primarily on
FUTURE payments and entitlements. National debt is composed of different
types of debt: debt by federal, state and local governments, international
debt, and house-hold, business, and financial sector debt plus un-funded
social security, Medicare and government pension contingent liabilities. It
includes what we are GOING TO owe without mentioning how much we will have
generated in the same time frame! Remember the PROJECTED $Trillion +
surplus we had that was PROJECTED in a vacuum without consideration of the
inevitable 10-12 year recession? If I rated my own debt on what I was going
to spend in the next 60 years, Then I'd have a Personal debt that would
invite suicide. However, if I rated my PROJECTED surplus on the rates of
increase in pay I had during my BEST years, I'll be dining with Bill Gates
this evening! I doubt that will happen.

The Nation Deficit is only relative when referrer to as a percentage of GDP.
GDP has more than quad-drupled in the last 20 years With out that info, a
$550 million deficit seems outrageous on it's face. But when viewed next to
the GDP and deficit from 20 years ago, it's actually quite benign
comparatively. Regardless of the National debt being BIG as a dollar figure,
as a percentage of what we produce, it's less than MANY MANY MANY
instances in our history. It is no where NEAR what it was in 1946 (a 1.28
ration, debt was 269 and GNP was 210). It then when down over the next ~35
years and worked up to another peak ( a ratio of .72) during '94-'96. Then
started down again.

Lower federal income taxes and raise the cap for SS. You'll encourage the
economy and increase government revenues. Revenue is made when money is
SPENT by consumers (be it business or consumer), not when money is taken by
the government. If most people would sit down and realize just how many
taxes are paid when they BUY something, they'd realize why. You INJECT money
into the economic cycle.

I still don't see how anyone can possibly think that the government is even
QUALIFIED to spend money effectively! Too much overhead and pork (on BOTH
side of the aisle).

That's it for me, I've ranted myself out...

SS and Medicare increases, fine. I have no problem with that.


"Rick Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings
about Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on
the economy growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75
years, the economy, according to the article, has grown at an
average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy
harangue. The only question to be debated is whether the
article is accurate or not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's
about 10% higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)