re: #5 Rightwingconspirator
Geez, Mikie, why not argue for your changes which have some merit, rather than arguing the proper use of a word?
Danny, you may not realize this, but words ARE important. Concepts are important.
I have attempted to offer the beginning of a discussion as to whether SS should exist, and if it should, how should it be funded. That is the first step.
I have attempted to explain to Obdicut that SS is not now, nor has ever been an actuarially sound program.
Apparently, he remains confused since he hasn’t thanked me for the time I have taken to lift his fog of confusion, or he lacks the integrity to admit the realization that he was confused.
Lifting the limits makes great sense to me. I’d love to see that happen. Lift it to $1,000,000. That ought to do it, but I lack the proof. Got any charts on what might happen if the limit was raised?
I am glad that lifting the limits makes sense to you. Why do you suggest a limit of $1,000,000?
What is your “theory” to establish that amount?
That ought to do what?
You lack the proof for what?
This is the job of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office).
You didn’t address taxing “unearned” or “passive” income, such as royalties, dividends, capital gains, rents, interest, et cetera.
I suggest that you reread the article for the more important points to discuss.
Thank you for your comments.
mz