Beth- I believe states can "opt out" of SS if they have an equivalent state system. CA at one time was not in SS because they had CALPERS - Calif. Public Employees Retirement System. Don't know if that's still the case or not - never been a govt. employee, not up on it... -Ben
> -----Original Message----- > From: BethF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:02 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Nukes > > > I believe that our state employees have "opted out" of SS. > How have they > done this? > > The reason we have SS, though, is to help the folks that > might not have > worked 30 years - so they dont' starve when they are 70. > > --Beth, Pseudo usenet cop > Merlin MTB, BikeE AT, RANS gliss, Trek R200, Kickbike > Owned by Kavik (Samoyed Boy) and Toklat (Keeshond Boy) > Anchorage, Alaska > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > If you had been working for the last 30 years and putting > the same amount > of > > money into a privatized, diversified account, instead of > SS, you would > have > > several times more money coming to you upon retirement than > you'll ever > get > > from SS. And your heirs can reap the benefits of your > account upon your > > death. With SS, they get nothing. > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Braver, Ben [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:19 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > > > H.- > > y'mean private accounts like NASDAQ mutual funds or ENRON > stock, so they > can > > watch the bottom drop out and their retirement vanish like smoke? > > -Ben > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:50 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > > > > > > Fiscally irresponsible is forcing people to deposit money > into social > > > security instead of putting it in private accounts. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:39 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Nukes > > > > > > > > > Fiscally irresponsible is giving tax refunds based on a > > > surplus that no > > > longer exists. Fiscally irresponsible is not paying down > > > the debt (if you consider the national debt then there > really wasn't a > > > surplus at all to begin with). Fiscally irresponsible is > > > gambling with Social Security... > > > > > > Howie > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Michael Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:30 PM > > > Subject: Re: Nukes > > > > > > > > > > What? How is taking money out of the federal > government fiscally > > > irresponsible? Again, that makes no sense! What IS fiscally > > > irresponsible is spending more money then the government > > > takes in! Congress > > > has NO fiscal discipline whatsoever! I've read reports > > > where up to 50 cents on the dollar is wasted and that has not > > > a damned thing > > > to do with tax cuts. And supporting lower taxes and > > > smaller government does not make one simple-minded. > > > > > > > > Michael Corrigan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
