Erickson Tribune

Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Author Messages
60srad (guest)

01/05/2008 9:29 PM Alert 
Posted By n/a on 12/17/2007 12:54 PM
F.I.C.A. Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act---Nowhere do I see the word tax in this program. This is an insurance premium paid to help the retired when they no longer have an income. I don't know of any other type of insurance that hasn't gone up in cost in over twenty four years or one that is more important. A slight increase in the premium and an increase in the amount subjected to the premium every other year should solve the funding problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well spoken, jimelda!  Your observation exposes the pervasive and recurrent Republican lie that the private sector can always do the job more efficiently than the government.  The fact is that the government (at least under ethical administrations) does not find it necessary to skim off the cream to be given to multimillion-dollar-salaried executives before applying funds to their intended purpose--in fact, and this is the part that is most galling to the greed-driven, the government is not required to make a profit, or merely break even, for that matter!
60srad (guest)

01/05/2008 9:32 PM Alert 
Posted By n/a on 12/17/2007 12:54 PM
F.I.C.A. Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act---Nowhere do I see the word tax in this program. This is an insurance premium paid to help the retired when they no longer have an income. I don't know of any other type of insurance that hasn't gone up in cost in over twenty four years or one that is more important. A slight increase in the premium and an increase in the amount subjected to the premium every other year should solve the funding problem.


norman jones
Posts:1

01/08/2008 7:31 PM Alert 
Democrats voted to raid ss in the 90s.1.2trillion dollars taken so far. IOUS left.Who will payTAX PAYERS}. Now owe 1.8 triiion dollars.Put in with federal retirement account@ 14-15%.Then lock it up.norman jones guest.
Jim Bush (guest)

02/08/2008 11:03 AM Alert 
Social Security, Medicare (and the American) economy would be better off if the FICA taxes (taxes on wages) were replaced for the most part by a value added tax (VAT):

1) A value added tax is levied on all production, not just payrolls. Companies that replace workers with machines would pay into Social Security based on the production of those machines.

2) Rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) allow nations to levy the VAT on imports and waive it for exports. Most other nations use VATs to
increase their exports to America and decrease their imports from America.

FICA taxes raise the cost of hiring, depressing wages and encouraging the replacement of workers by machines and "efficiencies". VATs treat people,
machines, and efficiencies equally.

Lee Iacocca, former CEO of Chrysler, complained that cars of our foreign competitors enter the US tax free, while our cars are loaded with taxes when they enter the international market. He highlighted the difference between
the VATs used by our competitors and the FICA and other taxes used here.

Until the US dollar started to decline in value relative to other currencies, our
trade deficit was running $2 billion per day -- about 7% of our economy. This was clearly unsustainable. The decline in the dollar has resulted in an increase in our exports. It is also associated with the increasing cost of commodities (such as oil) and increasing of travel abroad. A VAT would ease these pressures.

Social Security/Medicare will always be an income transfer from the younger generation to the older generation. Payroll taxes over tax the goose that lays the golden egg!

For America
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Forums > Tribune Forum Group > Politics > SOCIAL SECURITY



ActiveForums 3.5