http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

So that's the minimun cut that is necessary to keep SS solvent. What are
the Democrats proposing?

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

What are the assumed interest rates? There is no explanation of any of the
privatization numbers. Therefore the whole thing is suspect.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

What are the assumed interest rates? There is no explanation of any of
the
privatization numbers. Therefore the whole thing is suspect.

'Suspect' that may be the understatement of the year.

It is typical liebral smoke........they claim the calculations are based
on CBO economic assumptions but the truth is in the links......


The underlying calculations are from the "Center on Budget and Policies
Priorities"

Who are they you ask? Looks like developers of the liebral playbook.

http://www.cbpp.org/info.html
The Center's Mission
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier
policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal
policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families
and individuals.


If you look at the numbers, and assuming they are accurate, higher income
individuals take a greater hit in SS income when retireing. IF the system
is going insolvent those that can afford less income from SS vs those
dependant on it is where it should be cut. It's not fair to those who have
paid in but what other solution is fair?

So who has a problem with the proposal and what better why should it be
done?

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html

What are the assumed interest rates? There is no explanation of any of
the
privatization numbers. Therefore the whole thing is suspect.

'Suspect' that may be the understatement of the year.

It is typical liebral smoke........they claim the calculations are based
on CBO economic assumptions but the truth is in the links......


The underlying calculations are from the "Center on Budget and Policies
Priorities"

Who are they you ask? Looks like developers of the liebral playbook.

http://www.cbpp.org/info.html
The Center's Mission
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier
policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal
policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families
and individuals.


If you look at the numbers, and assuming they are accurate, higher income
individuals take a greater hit in SS income when retireing. IF the system
is going insolvent those that can afford less income from SS vs those
dependant on it is where it should be cut. It's not fair to those who
have paid in but what other solution is fair?

So who has a problem with the proposal and what better why should it be
done?

Would you like to repeat that in english?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:31:20 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:

Would you like to repeat that in english?

He is saying if you paid in the max FICA your whole career (as many
boomers did) the added amount that adds to your SS check is not
proportional to a guy who made minimum wage and barely got his 40
quarters in. Bumping the max out to $100,000 and beyond only
exacerbates this problem and points out what an unfair income
redistribution program SS is. That will really be true when the means
test comes ... and irt will.
This is becoming welfare, pure and simple. Get over it.

I agree

The medicare tax is even worse since there is no cap.......raising the cap
on SS will just cause a lot more people to go sub S and take income as
dividends.

Do away with the regressive FICA tax, adjust the income tax to cover
the outlay from general revenue funds and forget the whole "pension"
model people think SS is. FDR lied to you.

No ****.

With the current corporate drive to make their employees "contractors"
that is not an unreasonable approach.
I haven't seen a W2 in a decade.

*************


Ain't it the truth!

Saving about 7.5% of wage cost by transferring that expense to the
"contractor" would be incentive enough for most firms- but then throw
in the savings from offering no health benefits, no payment for
vacations or holidays, no company pension or 401K match, etc, and the
savings probably approach 20%.

But the good news? We contractors get paid for what we produce, not for
how long we spend producing it. :-)

If you haven't seen a W2 in a decade, it's been 10 years since you've
had to say, "Yes, boss". Besides, its a lot easier to get paid what
you're worth when the "employer" doesn't start weeping a river of tears
over the cost of fringe benefits, etc, when its time to negotiate a
raise. At least we contractors get to moan, for a change, about how SS
takes 15% off the top.

Certain workers get screwed by the contractor definition, however. They
still effectively punch a clock, get told where, when, and how to work,
and have to put up with the corporate bs. That's a misuse of the
"contractor" definition, and becoming more common every year.