On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:46:27 -0700, dave wrote:

On 08/09/2011 09:28 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:


The fact that more people collect than pay in is cataclysmic... Are you
going to start a war to kill enough elderly Americans to get the ratio
of payers to users more equal?



Have a donut hole between $107K and $500K. Above $500K 3% payroll tax
resumes. Rich people are expected to contribute more because they
benefit more. Nobody wants to live among desperate poor people; they
smell bad and run down the property values.

Without cheap immigrant labor (or worse) there'd be no USA as we know it.

Actually US Social Security is clearly and truthfully identified
by it's name "Social" as in 'Socialist' {Collective} and that is
OK {Good?} .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...ited_States%29
-promotes-the-'general-welfare'-of-senior-citizens-and-society-

Point-of-Fact : The Rich Wealthy Do NOT Pay Their
"Fair Share" of US Social Security Costs
-'social-{economic}-justice'-demands-that-they-do-

The Failure is that -if- US Social Security is Truly a Wealth
Redistribution Scheme : Taxing {Taking from} Present-Day
Income Earners and Giving To Current Retirees a Limited
Fixed Benefit {Modest Retirement Income}
*THEN* All Income with No Cap should be Taxed to Pay
the Full {Fool} Cost of US Social Security
# 1 - The First Step to Making US Social Security Solvent
is to Eliminate the Tax Income Cap.
The Second Step is to Increase the Tax
The Third Step is to Raise the Retirement Age
The Fourth Step is to Limit/Reduce* Future Benefits
* Means Testing

-former-president-bush-don't-need-no-social-security-

~ RHF