Andy Asberry wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 08:45:30 -0800, wrote:



Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

Dan



Social Security is already a mutual fund. Instead of "investing" it in
Treasury Notes, it could be invested in an index of stocks. 500, 5000,
pick a number. That increase in earnings plus raising the taxable
ceiling would pretty much solve the problem. (In my simple way of
thinking)


Not meaning to be a jerk here and start a war, but is there anything
really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable wages? I know that
conservatives here will condemn it as increased taxing but that's not
what I wanted to get at. The average guy pays SS on 100% of his/her
income. Geo Bush Jr pays SS on about 30% of his income from being the
Pres. A high end CEO earning about 10 mil a year pays it on about 1% of
their income.

If the standard "income" tax were arranged this way, people would revolt
because the richer you are, the lower your tax burden is.

Since this tax is actually about the social welfare of the country
(safety net), wouldn't it be wiser to have it on ALL income but at a
lower overall rate? Those who receive the most benefit pay at the same
rate as those who receive little (with regards to income)?

The argument that it would take tons of money from the econony as the
"rich" wouldn't be spending is moot here...gross SS intake would be the
same, just the distribution changed to cover all income.

Koz