[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[Kenneth Fairfield]

On Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:23:08 PM UTC-8, AEF wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:53 am, Kenneth Fairfield <ken.fa... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2011 6:50:17 PM UTC-8, AEF wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 10:54 am, Kenneth Fairfield <ken.... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > BTW, I agree with the gist of George's follow-up: the "temporary" reduction in SSI tax is not a good idea.  For one thing, it makes its financials look worse, and therefore lends credence to the <false> claims by the right that this an "entitlement", e.g., "welfare", program.  OTOH, eliminating the cap solves all its solvency (real or imagined) problems well beyond the foreseeable future.
> >
> > > Wait a minute. Didn't you just pooh-pooh eliminating the cap just one
> > > short paragraph above? Which do you advocate? Elimination or not?
> >
> > It occurred to me after by last post that there may be a misunderstanding of what "eliminating the cap" means.
> >
> > The current situation is that earned income is subject to SSI tax (one of several "payroll taxes") on all income *up to* $106K.  Earned income in *excess* of $106K is *not* subject to SSI tax.  The "cap" being discussed is that *maximum* of earned income that is subject to SSI tax.  Eliminating that tax means that earned income in excess of $106K is *also* subject to SSI tax.
> >
> > So I see no inconsistency in my previous statements.  If you still think there is, please clarify.
> >
> >    Thanks, Ken
> 
> I think you meant ". . . Eliminating that cap . . . ", not "that tax".

Yes.  I thought of posting a correction, but you were as smart as I expected you would be and understood what I meant vs. what I wrote. :-)
 
    -Ken