willbeurdaddy
Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Not if it is considered in relation to disposable income. Remember disposable income ? That's what used to fuel the economy without putting people in a shitload of debt. Good thing they got rid of it huh. A hundred grand a year means shit now, not long ago you could live completely debt free on that, but no more, unless you are a hermit or something. T^T Does what an insurance company charges for an annuity depend on disposable income? Who gives a fuck what it is in relation to disposable income. Social Security was designed to pay in and pay out, and over time has been "gerrymandered" to use your favorite term, in favor of the lower paid. If you want to argue for even more redistribution of income by uncapping the contributions and keeping the same benefit formula, then dont hide behind a lot of words, come out and say it. And then sign the post "Termy, Socialist".
< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/18/2011 9:55:16 PM >
_____________________________
Hear the lark and harken to the barking of the dogfox, gone to ground.
|