Moderator: Nicole Marie
And we can just imagine what you'da been like without six elder sibs to minimize that tenor ego, um, attitude, um, personality! Yeah, that's it, personality!Originally posted by OperaTenor:
I was the youngest of seven.
[b] Need I say more?!! [/b]
I'll reply by simply quoting from the report and allowing the reader to decide who's grasp of the facts is better. Many do homework...very little homework is error-free. There may well be errors in this report but I'll take my chances with its analysis:Originally posted by Shapley:
The proposal is not that hard to explain. Currently, Social Security benefits are tied to wages, not to prices. This means that benefit increases, or "Cost of Living Allowances", are rising faster than the actual cost of living, which is accurately reflected by prices. Wages increase faster than prices, which is why our standard of living goes up.
Tying benefit increases to prices does not cut any present benefits, it only cuts the rate at which benefits would grow if the current system remained unaltered. "Cuts" of future adjustments are not truly cuts, since they purely and simply do not yet exist.
Once again, the author assumes that those who support changes to the system are ignorant of the facts. Many of us have done our homework, and like changes.
Most of the companies I've worked for in recent years had 401k accounts set up for their employees. These are basically pre-tax savings accounts intended to provide money for retirement. They may or may not have additional funds put into them by the company, and participation in them is completely voluntary.Originally posted by deathstalker82:
You will be hard pressed to find somewhere that doesn't have a halfway decent retirenment set-up for their employees.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]