Time for the weekend. KK’s opens. Stop by and welcome the ladies to the ‘hood if you are in the area. I would hope that the City Council would stop by and speak, introduce themselves, as they would do any other store opening in the area.
I think everyone will be greatly relieve once the store opens and we see that no one has cloven hooves, horns or a tail.
Well, except for this young lady who is just in town for the weekend, getting ready for the big day in 2 weeks:
Wolverine – I think what you are getting at is the misrepresentation of what Obama proposed – giving the options to have a private company offer annuities for a 401k plan. http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm , not for the government to take over the plans.
“The Department of Labor and Treasury Department request for comments on how 401(k) plans might be encouraged to offer annuities to 401(k) participants and how those participants might be persuaded to convert their 401(k) assets into a stream of lifetime income-in other words, how to put some of their retirement money into annuities.” – http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/financial-independence/obama-wants-to-steal-your-401k-and-why-you-should-be-glad/927/
And of course, the fox opinion – http://mediamatters.org/research/201004060051
There’s a proposal under discussion authored by the Economic Policy Institute (another tentacle of the Soros octopus – what a surprise) for something called the Guaranteed Retirement Account which would sieze 401K accounts and impose an additional 5% payroll tax going forward. This is being championed by Joe Biden and Tom Harkin. Presumably, this retirement fund would become the buyer of last resort alongside the Fed for our long bonds (once the rest of the world figures out we have no intention of paying back our debt).
My guess is that outright siezure would be too brazen, even for this administration. What they would probably do is tack on the 5% payroll tax and then end all preferential tax treatment for private retirement vehicles (IRA, 401K, etc.) and hide it inside of the next mega bank bailout bill coming soon to a legislative session near you when the too big to fail gang collapse from the foreclosure mess.
Which is why you shouldn’t keep the bulk of your assets inside the United States. Or in US Dollars.
@wolverine, I would say that was some sort of taker conspiracy rumor. Where do you read things like this? I can’t imagine by whose authority it would occur to anyone that my 401k would belong to the govt? (other than unpaid taxes part)
Where else does Cato post? Does he have his own blog anywhere?
I am with you…re wall street speak. I don’t understand the buzz words. I understand a little but then I glaze over.
@Emma, the only thing I can think of has to do with chicken excrement. That is typical though. Remember how they wanted to distance themselves from Bill Clinton. That was a BIG mistake.
Here’s a link to the committee testimony: http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eisenbrey.pdf
You don’t hold hearings on stuff that you’re not at least considering.
Should I make an AH of myself before or after I read the link?
@Moon-howler
The book is by retired Army General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the JCS–it’s a sort of kiss and tell about his experiences as Chairman and his run-ins with people like Rumsfeld. Shelton never pulled any punches. It’s on noon so I presume it is on Kindle.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
I don’t know about coffee party muscle, but I do know about kooks when I see or read about them. O’Donnell, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh–all in the same boat–kooks of the first water. I can hardly wait for this election to get over since I think Americans could possible have the worst two years since The Contract with America and then perhaps we will wake up and see how stupid we were.
@Cato the Elder
@Wolverine
Is the extreme paranoia or what?
@George S. Harris
Come again?
He asked me to render an opinion. The fact that it is being discussed in the Senate is a matter of public record. I can see a path to get this done, assuming another financial meltdown.
@Cato the Elder
@Wolverine
Hmmm–I didn’t see a thing in the report about “seizing 401k plans” etc. And I want to thank Cato for recommending moving your savings off shore–this will really help the American economy Cato. We need more people like you to run the country into the ground. If “off shore” is so good, why not move off shore and take your “stuff” with you?
@Moon-howler
Moon–I thinkyou will come to the same conclusion I did. Your thoughts about conspiracy theory may be just right. Remember you’re talking to anti-Obama folks!
I read the pdf file and saw nothing wrong with it. I don’t understand the desire to save the top 2% from paying more social security.
I saw nothing that had anything to do with someone swiping my 401k. (a shootable offense I might add) Maybe I didn’t read closely.
Thanks George and thanks Cato, for the link.
“O’Donnell, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh–all in the same boat–kooks of the first water.”
There must be a WHOLE LOT of fellow kooks out there then, since these people are VERY popular. Millions of them. Perhaps you’re a little bit biased……..
For my liberal friends here (I know there are a couple somewhere around here). I thought this was pretty cute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54FRMedT_s
Woot-woot, Osbourn!!! 24-21!!!!!
Emma, “woot-woot” is right. OHS had to fight back after more than a little
adversity against a very fine football team. Almost had a heart attack.
GO EAGLES! 8-0!
I know another guy that relied on fear tactics and outrageous claims and was VERY popular with a WHOLE LOT of people and for a time wielded a whole lot of clout … but Joe McCarthy died more than 50 years ago.
It was a fabulous but stressful game, for sure!
And ol’ Joe happened to have been right in many cases. That helped too. Just like these people.
Outrageous claims and fear tactics? Really? Have you seen what the Democrats have been doing to this countries finances lately?
Yes and the Democrats don’t scare me a bit more than the Republicans do. What I find scary for real is this denial that the Republicans had anything to do with things turning to crap in the first place. That’s the part that makes me sick. Both sides of the aisle needed to work together to clean up the country and that has not happened. Too much denial.
So I guess the Republicans will take it back and finish where they left off. Have I mentioned lately how I hate both parties? What a bunch of losers.
As for the retirement account thing:
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/10/retirement-security.html
“Or you can read this summary of the meeting from Connie Hair at Human events. The point of the meeting was to figure out ways in which private 401(k) plans could be more “fairly” distributed as taxpayer-funded pensions. Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Committee, hand-picked the witnesses for the meeting. Who did he chose? People advocating “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts.” Sound familiar? It should. I’ve been telling you about this plan for at least two years. It is a plan created by Theresa Guilarducci and it would seize private retirement accounts, set up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax, and then use the money from the tax and seizure to distribute it “fairly” to Americans.”
What part of this plan is NOT theft?
@Wolverine
I don’t think they make ’em like that any anymore.
thanks Moe.
It sounds like the Eagles were indeed mighty. Congratulations on a fine win, Emma and Big Dog. Sharpen those talons, file those beaks, fluff up those eagle feathers with pride over the win!!
Ok, why does Borst think this is going to happen?
I think it is utter nonsense. I see nothing that makes me think the feds are going to come in and seize my privately owned accounts 401, IRA, etc. If I start up a scare without evidence and enough people fall for it, then I have accomplished something for sure.
I hope they are holding hearings on social security. How long can it be ignored. I saw nothing in that Eiserbrey paper that made me want to hide my asset. What it is I am overlooking in it? I happen to agree that the ceiling needs to be lifted off the 106k a year people. I have no clue why middle class Americans would continue to protect the affluent while the middle class is once again bearing the burden. Eisenbrey makes some excellent points about the upper 2% gaining the most wealth…I would quote it if I could lift it off the pdf.
@Moon-howler
I read through most of the stuff too Moon–that is until I started to get sick to my stomach from the crap being put out. This stuff is pure Republican bullsh!t! They have taken what might be a good idea and twisted it around like a pretzle–all part of their scare tactics and do anything moves to discredit the present administration. I didn’t see one thing about seizing people’s savings accounts. I did see that they want to quit giving the rich all the tax breaks they now get from 401(k) plans, etc. And as to people not annuitizing their savings upon retirement–someone better be able to show me it isn’t a good idea. I have taken my TIAA-CREF stuff and done a two-life annuity and even if it runs out, it still pays until both of us are gone. And by taking a guaranteed pay period, if we both die before the period, whatever is left goes to our trust for distribution. In addition, I have some minimum distribution stuff that presently is making more than the minimum distribution so it continues to grow. And all my savings are here in the U.S.–duh!!!
I think TIAA-CREF works differently than the stuff I have and I can’t even tell you why I think that. My brother has it. Is that a sign of old age when siblings sit around and talk about their retirement funds?
I have a fund that can be annuitized. I was told not to do it. Now I forget why. I have paid all these years, something like 1% so I would have that option. But, I do have something that IS annuitized. Maybe that is why I was told not to annuitize it.
I am tired of protecting rich people. Raising that ceiling would sure help out social security. I am surprised SS isn’t taken out on your SS check. How many people know that you pay federal income tax on a ss check. How stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!!! It should be illegal to tax social security. To everyone who has a 401k, you don’t touch a penny of that money without giving up 24% if you live in Virginia. So if your 401k is worth $400k on paper, you really only have a little over $300k. Thats the reality.
Ooooppss! I clicked the wrong “Reply” button regarding George Vujnovich. I apologize to Wolverine and Moe and thank you again Moe for the great story. And all Mr. Vjnovich gets is a Bronze Star? They should be ashamed of themselves.
I believe that what I said was that I considered an outright seizure of existing 401K plans to be unlikely. Please take note that “unlikely” does not equate to “impossible.” When I read congressional testimony and find that the buildup to the conclusion is 75% class warfare (which seems to have produced the desired effect, judging by some of the comments) coupled with words like “employers and employees would be directed” and “federally mandated” it’s not a stretch to see that a narrative could be developed around the “rich” making outsized and unfair gains in their 401Ks due to preferential tax treatment.
It’s not a question of whether or not the idea is good. It’s a question of whether or not the Federal Government should compel citizens to do it using force of law. Those of you in this thread who seem to be advocating for this policy are some of the very same people who want government out of your bedrooms and out of your marriage decisions, so I’m confused as to why you should suddenly want their involvement in your retirement security. Tell me, what makes you think that this is a good idea? Because they’ve done such a splendid job with the current Social Security system? Just because a crook follows a political ideology that better comports with your view of the world doesn’t make him/her any less of a crook.
Finally, my livelihood depends upon my ability to approach complex decision making in a completely dispassionate manner. In a nutshell, my process consists of mapping out the high probability outcomes while simultaneously considering the low probability (but high impact) possibilities. I plan a course of action for the high probability outcome but always hedge risk in the event of a “black swan” or low probability, high impact outcome.
Indeed, seizure of private retirement vehicles would qualify as a black swan, but it’s happened before to other countries under massive debt loads – just ask the Argentinians.
So, I’ll happily wear my tinfoil hat and keep the lion’s share of my nest egg offshore and priced in Aussie dollars, which have appreciated 15% against the USD since June. If I’m wrong, I can click my mouse a few times and wait a day or so and have that money show back up in the US.
I never thought hundreds of billions of tax dollars would be given to banksters to bail out risky speculation. I never thought that the taxpayers would end up as owners of two of the big three auto companies. I never thought that I could be forced to enter into a contract with a private company to purchase goods or services. Yet all of this has come to pass, so excuse me if I don’t put anything past these miscreants whom reside in Washington.
And I never thought we would have another near-great Depression.
I only want the ceiling lifted on social security payments. If that makes me a communist, so be it. A person making a half million a year isn’t going to get protected by ME.
What scares me is the refusal of the left to acknowledge that conservatives have again and again and again acknowledged that the Republicans contributed to the mess by acting like statists, socialists, and power-hungry government-growers. No matter how many times we acknowledge that the Republicans lost their way and became Democrat-lite, the center-left, with their selective hearing, doesn’t understand. We’re saying “the sky is blue” and you lefties say “they just don’t understand that the sky is blue!”. Once you get to total denial of that which is right in front of your nose like that, you’re essentially non-functional.
Leftists think 2006 and 2008 happened because the whole nation went socialist overnight. I’m afraid that’s wrong. 2006 and 2008 happened because we got sick of neo-cons. That’s why I voted for Webb in 06. That’s why we looked at McCain in 08 and said “you want me to vote for THAT?”
@Moon-howler
I don’t think you’re a Stalinist for wanting to do this. I just don’t believe there’s that much to be gained by it. If you can produce an analysis showing exactly how much money we can gain and that it will make the system solvent, I’m all ears. My mind is open.
But don’t come at me with the argument that we should do this for purposes of “fairness” because that’s not an argument based in fact and reason. That’s someone making an arbitrary decision to confiscate the private property of another based entirely on envy, and while it may make people feel good on some populist level it’s still a specious argument.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
It’s the you lefties…that I love.
Where was the outcry for 8 years? I sure didn’t hear it. You all put the same pres right back in office.
You can say it over and over and it doesn’t change things.
As for the confiscation of private property? I am not even sure where that is coming from. I would rather not be in the middle of a depression. I don’t think most people would.
No one said fair. Why should I pay out on 100% of my earnings and someone who brings in a quarter of a million or a million only pay up to $106k like I am paying. Why are you righties protecting the rich people? The answer I keep hearing is such BS.
@Cato, and you have failed to give me a reason why people who make more money should be exempt from paying social security tax on most of it. The ‘jobs’ reason is bull. I totally understand why people in that tax bracket don’t want to do it. What I don’t understand is why the millions who aren’t there are protecting the 2% who are.
No one ever said fair. How about logical? Why is the magic number $106k?
Who is better able to absorb the shock? Just curious.
As for proof-simple math is out there. Will it take care of the entire problem? Doubtful. Will it help? More than likely.
@Moon-howler
I’ll bite. Social Security was supposed to be a trust where people paid in a variable amount and got back a defined benefit, not a progressive system of taxation. Does the person making 500K get a bigger Social Security than the person making 106K? No. So what you’re saying is that you want to take a ponzi scheme that is progressive to begin with and make it even more redistributionist than it already is.
And, I’ll tell you exactly why in this instance I’m willing to defend the 2%. It’s because the line tends to move. Today we make hay demonizing the 2%. Tomorrow we can start trashing the 10%. Where does it end? We’re quickly coming to a place where the definition of “rich” is anyone making more than 50.1% of the electorate.
I have no problem with making the ss tax a flat tax after a certain point. Anything that deals with taxation is never fair to everyone. Life isn’t fair. However, I am not willing to protect the upper 2% from any ss obligations over $106k. There are all sorts of ways to do this once we get rid of sacred cows. Unfortunately, Americans can’t line item veto where their various taxes go.
If I were doing tax reform I would fix the part where 48% of Americans pay no federal tax. We assume it is all lesser income people. I would guess some of the wealthy are in there also.
I have to agree with MH on the SS tax thing. I just started to reach that threshold a couple of years ago and I was shocked when I got a huge raise towards the end of the year that first time. Sure, was happy to have the extra $$ for a few weeks until the new year started the new clock, but to me, it was A LOT of money in each paycheck…like a couple of hundred extra. So I started thinking about people that make over $200K…they reach that theshold in May or June! Are they REALLY the people that need the extra $$?
Call me a socialist then, and maybe I am, but it seems only right to me that if there is a SS tax it should be on all the $$, not up to a certain limit.
My investment style is different from Cato’s. He’s more oriented toward technical analysis, active trading and market timing, while I’m more focused on fundamental analysis, asset allocation and longer-term holds. We would differ significantly on specific trades.
However, on the other subjects he is absolutely correct. I heard interviews with some of the Obama people (not the senior ones like Geitner, but lower-level policy wonks you might see on non-primetime C-Span) saying exactly what Cato mentioned. The Administration is considering confiscating 401(k), IRA and other assets because, as one of them said, “the government needs that money.” Investors would get some sort of government provided annuity in return that they would not control. I don’t know how seriously the Obama Administration is considering this idea, if at all, anymore but they had it on the table at one point.
Cato is also correct about Social Security. When originally created it was intended to be a savings plan for retirement. People contribute through payroll deductions and receive upon retirement an annuity from the government that is more-or-less equal on an actuarially basis to the contributions they made. Social Security has since become a redistributionist Ponzi scheme that cannot survive in its present form.
This must be a Republican scare tactic thing. I have never heard of it before. I think that most people would be horrified if they thought the feds were going to come in and just confiscate their 401k. Congress or the Pres start talking about it, I will sit up and take notice. If it is some mid grade wonk talking about it…oh well.
How many people do you think would want the government to just take away their 401k? I would say probably zero.
America put the same guy right back after 4 years, not 8, so I’m not sure I follow that argument. You may not have been listening for that last 4 years. The outrage was there for sure. Oh, and what were we supposed to put in after the first four years, Kerry? That was another “well, he isn’t as bad as that!” election.
Psssst! Hey, folks! you wanna know what the outrage is about? Here it is. If Mr. $200k decides he doesn’t need the money he EARNED, he tithes, he gives to charity. Who are any of you to decide what he gets to keep and what he doesn’t? Take TWINAD, here. Did you give that extra money to charity? All of it? or are you only generous with other people’s money? Oh, and if the tax should be on ALL the money, why are there almost 50% of the populace who pay no taxes? The good old zero-liability voter.
How about money I earned that is less than $200k? The flaw in your logic is that there is a magic number that is the beginning of sacred cowhood.
Do I or do I not pay on 100% of my earnings if I make 106k or less?
Why are you protecting those people? Protect all of us.
oookkkaaaayyyyy, @Slow.
And you think the American people are just going to turn over their 401ks to the feds?
Once again, blockquotes can sniff me.
This is worth repeating. When you see me talking about a stock it’s almost always because I’m taking it for a trade. Please, please, please don’t buy something and let it sit in your portfolio because you saw it talked about here, not that anyone would do that but just in case. A good example is the BIDU trade we were kicking around a few comments up. BIDU is ridiculously overvalued and at some point the piper will come calling and it will face multiple contraction, but technically speaking in the short term it’s like a coiled spring ready for a nice day in the sun. NTK is right, I’m a trader and an aggressive one at that so evaluate my comments with that in mind.
Thanks for posting a caveat Cato. I feel certain our readers knew that already but it never hurts to spell it out.
Talking stocks is fun. Not everyone likes it. I have a close relative in the business so I get my fix that way. Actually he owns and manages a mutual fund.
Moonhowlings readers should understand that they should never invest solely on the basis of something they read or hear on a blog or in the media, even if the people providing the information are credible and knowledgeable. Everyone has different financial needs and risk tolerances. An investment might be perfect for one person but completely unsuitable for someone else.
Cato wrote earlier that he does not have private clients but instead invests his own portfolio and works with institutional investors. That means that those institutional investors are working with the clients and they determine if the investments Cato’s analysis selects are appropriate for those clients.
Whether you work with an advisor or do your own investing, you should always first lay out an investment plan that reflects your own personal needs and ability to tolerate investment risk. That plan might include some of Cato’s recommendations or it might not.
@Moon-howler
Americans will never turn over their 401(k) and other savings to the government willingly. Those assets will be confiscated just like all other taxation. I hope the Obama people are not serious about this plan but they have discussed it.
Can someone point me in the direction of where it has been discussed seriously by people in a position to make it happen?
There were links to Congressional hearings. Those are the guys. All they have to do is change a tax code or write news ones.
If those in favor of this sort of thing continue to be in power, what’s to stop them?
As for the SS tax cut off, those “rich” people aren’t paying into the system, but neither will they get more out of it. Lets give EVERYBODY a tax break. Kill Social Security. Let people invest their own money. If they can afford to lose 6.5 percent of their salary, or more if you consider matching funds as part of their salary, or 13% if you are self employed, then they ALL have enough to put the money into investments.
@Cargo
People will not and do not invest their own money without incentive. Secondly, what would have happened to folks if the Bush plan (which I supported, by the way) had been in place in fall of 2008. There was living proof that maybe it wasn’t such a hot plan.
Even with incentive, many people won’t invest their own money. Some can’t. How many people do you know, for example, who don’t invest in the company 401k program even though there are matching funds? So what becomes of these people at retirement? If free money isn’t an incentive, I sure don’t know what is.
The Obama annuity plan is being pitched as “voluntary” to get it started as a means of making retirees’ assets more secure. The problem is that other legislation would limit everyone’s ability to use or the tax benefits of 401(k), IRA and other retirement plans. Further increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains would make other investments less attractive as well. These measures could effectively give those saving for retirement no other choice than buying into these annuities.
The annuities would be serviced by companies such as AIG, which received massive bailouts and are still beholden to the Federal government. The Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) regulates already pension and retirement plans, and the kinds of investments they can hold. Under the new scheme, ERISA would be expanded to mandate that these new annuities invest only in “safe” assets such as U.S. Treasury debt. Thus, the Obama annuities are ostensibly private, but in effect direct retirement savings into the U.S. Treasury.
Assets in retirement plans are currently nearly $4 trillion and who doubts that the politicians and Federal bureaucrats lust for getting their hands on that vast sum?
The impact is not the U.S. Treasury telling Schwab, Fidelity, and everyone to send in all of the retirement accounts that hold. It would be a restructuring of the “private” retirement investment system that would ultimately drive those assets into the U.S. Treasury.
Cato and I approach investing quite differently, but my guess is that he/she would agree with me that annuities, even today, are poor choices as investments for retirees because of their expenses, poor performance, lack of flexibility and failure to provide protection from inflation. I’ve posted before on Moonhowlings about the problems with 401(k) plans and linked to the documentary on PBS about those problems. Reform is needed. Nonetheless, this annuity scheme would be far worse than what we have now and eliminate most or all of the choice investors and retirees have now.
Following are a couple of articles to get started.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR9zVMXzOeX0
Indeed. I’m also not a fan of the 401K, mostly because I don’t feel like they offer enough flexibility. Actually, that’s how I started out years ago. I would loan myself money from my 401K at 4%, use it for fairly aggressive trading, then pocket the gains (and sometimes eating the losses) and pay myself back. Lather, rinse and repeat.
I’d venture a guess that most astute folks with IRAs could have dodged the bullet had they hit the exits when Bear Stearns went under (there’s never just one cockroach) because those with the sand to do so could have flipped into inverse ETFs and the like to actually profit from the decline.
There’s rarely a way to do that in a 401K, the best you can usually do is to hide out in TIPS and pray (which actually turned out to be a pretty good strategy last time around).
I’d also venture a guess that if we started teaching our kids about finance starting in middle school we wouldn’t be sitting around talking about drastic measures to rescue our retirement system.
To something more topical, I just finished going through some charts and am seeing some signs of bottoming in the dollar so we may be due for a bit of a hangover next week. The charts in the materials/industrials look like they could roll over here a bit, which makes sense because those are the guys most levered to a weak dollar. If we get dollar strength like I think we will then I expect these guys to give up the ghost first.
I still like some tech names here that have good setups but if the materials and commodities roll over it may take them down too. Something to be looking for in tech is the names that just sit there and consolidate and flag out while the broad market corrects – that’s your clue as to what bounces next.
Specifically on AAPL Gene Munster was out with a note about the iPad and the effect on margins:
“Don’t expect typical EPS upside due to iPad. The Street is looking for EPS of $4.05. Assuming a typical beat over the past 17 quarters, Apple would report $4.80.
To get to $4.80 on $18.8b in revenue would require gross margin of 43%, well ahead of 39.1% in June, the Street’s 38% September estimate and guidance of 35%. The bottom line is the mix shift and revenue upside driven by the lower margin iPad (about 30% gross margin) significantly tempers EPS upside potential.”
That’s significant because Gene is known to the community as the “axe” for AAPL. The axe is the analyst everyone looks to, and follows like a lemming. If we get any whiff of margin weakness from AAPL after the bell on Monday then AAPL could tank all the way back to 285 and if the pullback doesn’t get contained there we could see it go to 260 where it has very strong support (buying opportunity that I hope I get – BTW). That’s your nightmare scenario for next week – dollar strength, commodities roll over, AAPL margins don’t beat the whisper = decent correction.
I’m aggressive, but not aggressive enough to outright bet against AAPL 🙂 These guys are the best in the business at sandbagging expectations and aside from the fact that the future of their business depends on the continued good health of one very skinny pale man they’re firing on all cylinders. Besides, it usually takes a day or so for AAPL to pull in after reporting the quarter but as goes AAPL, so goes the market.
See, and I tell folks “you think people are just gonna let the feds take away old people’s SS?” But for some reason it keeps coming up!
Slow,
I can’t account for every penny of the “extra” money I got, but I do remember that it started in late November, so I think I got three paychecks with the bonus cash. I also remember that the year it happened it was only a few weeks after everything came crashing down and people were really hurting that year so I donated $500 to SOME a few weeks before Christmas. I probably would have done that regardless of whether I got the extra cash or not because there were stories everywhere that year about how donations were down at all the foodbanks and more middle class people were relying on food banks than ever before. I don’t know what I did with the rest of it. The point is, I wasn’t counting on it, I could get by without it and so could anyone else that hits the threshold. It hasn’t been in the paycheck all along and I just don’t understand that if it cuts OFF at some point, why doesn’t it cut ON at some point…like after the first $25K made? That would offer a boost for the people that really need it.
Right, but you’re relying on the government to decide “who really needs it”. I believe that people are wise and compassionate enough to decide for themselves who needs it. It’s called freedom, and a lot of folks can’t handle it these days.
@Moon-howler
Ya gotta remember that Cato doesn’t trust any figures he didn’t generate. The Congressional Research Service has done a very good report (provided earlier) showing that it is possible to make SS solvent by lifting the cap and keeping benefits steady and even letting benefits increase provides 90% of the SS shortfall.
Doy ou suppose the institutional investors that Cato works with are the same guys that have caused the market to yoyo all over the place and, in turn, causing may people to lose so much of what they invested? No wonder he keeps his $$ off shore!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/mexican-assassins-headed-arizona/
And all we can do is post signs? Pathetic!
@Moon-howler
Moon,
That’s just it. Its not the gov’t’s business to ensure that everyone “invests”. That’s how this ponzi scheme started. Back then, the average citizen did not have the tools to invest for later. Savings was it. Now, anybody can buy T-bills to having assorted investments. Maybe those people that don’t save for later, need that money for other important things. I’m sure many people would like that Soc. Security Tax money back.