Greetings and Salutations.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "jeff"
wrote:

"TheTruth" wrote in message
news:xzKvd.33643$ve.9250@fed1read06...
In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?

Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

You are feeding at the welfare trough, skimming 7+% of my income to do so,
and you are bitching about having to pay income taxes? That's funny.


The fact of the matter is that SS takes closer to 15%. Your
direct contribution is 7+%. Your employer has to match that...which
is cash you never see. Of course, those of us that are self-employed
get to pay both sides of that...so we DO see the entire amount.
I don't know what the answer is...short of a combination
approach where for a given period of time, say, 20 years, the worker
not only pays the 14% or so SS tax, to keep the folks that have paid
into the system for the folks in the past, AND has to make a similar
contribution to their OWN account for the future.
of course, if the government simply lifted the current cap
on earnings taxed by SS, that would help a lot to get a bunch more
cash into the system...and would cause much wailing and gnashing of
teeth amongst the high-income folks.
Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as
of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system...
and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off,
and relieve us of the problem. There might be some minor discomfort
and inconvenience among the folks that should be getting their
cut of the pie, but, who fall after the cut-off date. I am sure,
though that they have children, or churches, or some other support
group that will keep them from freezing to death under a bridge,
or pestering folks on the street, asking for hand-outs.
Regards
Dave Mundt