To have all this rhetoric and this divisiveness to come up in this young generation, I mean we are here in a new generation in our country for blacks and that is not something you want to start instilling in these young black men right now.
Can you refer me to any online analysis of Socialist Insecurity, as it violates FICA payers` 10th Amendment rights, & analysis of the FICA death tax, that bilks FICA payers out of their hard-earned contributions, if they don`t live to collect any Socialist Insecurity benefits, or have no eligible survivors?
Thanks for any info you can provide.
and retirementthesis statement for social security and Your ..
Socialist Insecurity as it is now organized retards economic growth. I read in the Journal back in '95 or so that, if SS were privatized in 1980, the economy would have been 50% larger than it actually was at that time. That's a huge dead weight around the neck of the U.S. economy.
Start studying Privatization of Social Security
as presented in the thesis statement, defects in the administration's proposals for restructuring the Social Security Thesis statement for social security and retirementthesis statement for social security and Your Estimated Benefits” in the Social Security Statement.
Media thesis statement of current and future ..
"The Missing Piece in Policy Analysis: Social Security Reform", National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5413, by MARTIN FELDSTEIN.
a thesis statement for privatizing social security ..
Social Security and Medicare face a demographic crisis. Privatization may be a good thing, and it probably would not make the crisis worse, but it is not the solution to the crisis. See .
Comparative Analysis-Privatizing Social Security
I'm also confused by the claims for a vast increase in returns. As Popeye might say, returns are what they are. Shifting assets around onto different account statements doesn't increase their return.
essays on privatizing social security form thesis statement ..
This lecture discusses the economic losses that result from an unfunded social security retirement system and the potential gain from shifting to a funded system. The social security payroll tax distorts labor supply and the form in which compensation is paid. Although each individual's benefits are linked to that individual's previous payroll tax payments, the low equilibrium rate of return inherent in an unfunded system implies a `net' payroll tax that causes distortions. The resulting deadweight loss is 1% of each year's GDP in perpetuity, an amount equal to 20% of payroll tax revenue and a 50% increase in deadweight loss of the personal income tax. Also, there is the loss of investment income resulting from forcing employees to accept the low implicit return of an unfunded program rather than the much higher return paid on private saving or in a funded social security program. The present value of the annual losses from using an unfunded system exceeds the benefit to those who received windfall transfers when the program began and when it expanded. Shifting to a funded program cannot reverse the crowding out of capital that has already occurred. Recognizing the existing unfunded obligation only makes that piece of the national debt explicit, but shifting to a funded program limits crowding out of capital formation to the amount that already occurred. Future increases in annual saving that result from economic growth are able to earn the higher rate of return on real capital. The present value of these gains is equivalent to a perpetuity of more than 2% of GDP a year. The combi- nation of improved labor market incentives and higher real return on saving has a net present value gain of more than $15 trillion, an amount equivalent to three percent of each future year's GDP forever.