[wolfen]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/01/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

"We're like an incredibly rich family that owns so much land they can't travel to the ends of their domain. And they sit on the front porch and consume a little bit of everything that comes in, all the riches of the land, and they consume roughly 6 percent more than they produce. And they pay for it by selling off land at the edge of the landholdings that they can't see. They trade away a little piece every day or take out a mortgage on a piece.

"That scenario couldn't end well..."

[Randman]

He's just old and cranky and upset that his betting against the dollar has backfired. He has lost more than US$300 million this year alone. That has to hurt. And his company could catch some of the AIG backlash (though he continues to give props to his mates at AIG).

[dcmacdaddy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043000863.html

He and his investing partner, Charlie Munger, have some interesting things to say about saving Social Security. Here is an excerpt.

"Beyond the AIG issue, Buffett and Munger sharply criticized attempts to partially privatize Social Security, blasted the New York Stock Exchange's plans to go public and said Berkshire lost money on foreign currency contracts in the first quarter of 2005 but would maintain its bet against the U.S. dollar.

On Social Security, Munger, a self-described conservative, said Republicans are "out of their cotton-picking minds" to make radical changes to a program he called "one of the most successful things the government has ever done." Buffett, a Democrat, said he would support raising the retirement age, boosting the cap that currently limits income subjected to Social Security taxes to $90,000 and paying more in benefits to poorer retirees. "I have great trouble with people who say this system can't be sustained," he said."

Buffett has suggested two of the three "fixes" I have always advocated: Raising the retirement age and increasing the income cap. Now all we need to do is get him to advocate means testing--My third favorite "fix" for Social Security that DOESN'T require the establishment of private investment accounts.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

support raising the retirement age, boosting the cap that currently limits income subjected to Social Security taxes to $90,000 and paying more in benefits to poorer retirees.

Now that is common sense.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Buffett has suggested two of the three "fixes" I have always advocated: Raising the retirement age and increasing the income cap. Now all we need to do is get him to advocate means testing--My third favorite "fix" for Social Security that DOESN'T require the establishment of private investment accounts.

Cool fixes. If I make enough money, does this mean that I don't have to pay into SS, and my employer doesn't have to pay either?

That's what means-testing is, right? Folks who make too much don't get to participate when they retire. As long as we make that retroactive to today, I'm in complete agreement. That way, I can put ALL of that money into whatever account I choose. Excellent idea.

If it doesn't mean any of these things, you're advocating another wealth transfer program targeting "the rich." That won't be very popular, since $35,000/yr. and up now classifies one as rich in some circles. Taxing all of my income now and then refusing to pay me SS benefits when the time comes makes me less and less likely to support the system as it is, even.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Buffett has suggested two of the three "fixes" I have always advocated: Raising the retirement age and increasing the income cap. Now all we need to do is get him to advocate means testing--My third favorite "fix" for Social Security that DOESN'T require the establishment of private investment accounts.

Cool fixes. If I make enough money, does this mean that I don't have to pay into SS, and my employer doesn't have to pay either?

That's what means-testing is, right? Folks who make too much don't get to participate when they retire. As long as we make that retroactive to today, I'm in complete agreement. That way, I can put ALL of that money into whatever account I choose. Excellent idea.

If it doesn't mean any of these things, you're advocating another wealth transfer program targeting "the rich." That won't be very popular, since $35,000/yr. and up now classifies one as rich in some circles. Taxing all of my income now and then refusing to pay me SS benefits when the time comes makes me less and less likely to support the system as it is, even.

Let's punish the folks who are "lucky enough" to have lots of income now, and "lucky enough" to have saved for retirement. Let's punish them now AND then. Sounds like typical blue state politics to me.