now I think you missed what I was saying

Post #353,787 by boxley 1/29/12 9:59:00 PM Reply	now I think you missed what I was saying You turn 65 and retire, you now make nada. House, car boat and RV is paid for and not a liquid asset. You are eligible for medicare (old fucks are expensive so we have a hold harmless there.) you also have 400k in the bank, mutual funds. I think that you should wait until you have a magic number(say 20k) liquid left before you start collecting old peoples welfare. Now a guy who hits 65 and works doesnt get any social security unless he makes under 14k a year, you pulling down 30k for country club dues shouldnt get a full ride either. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,789 by drook 1/29/12 10:26:52 PM Reply	Chicken feed First, I understand the cap. That's why the total paid on a percentage basis goes down as income goes up. But my main point is that the money that would come into the system if the cap were removed absolutely dwarfs the money that would stop being paid out of the system with the introduction of means testing. -- Drew
Post #353,792 by boxley 1/30/12 8:53:31 AM Reply	so again, you want the rich to subsidize the bourgeois at the expense of the poor, education and healthcare Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,794 by drook 1/30/12 9:46:52 AM Reply	s/ at the expense of / in addition to / ____ hope that helps -- Drew
Post #353,800 by boxley 1/30/12 4:36:15 PM Reply	not really, the safety net was not built for the middleclass to subsidize their "lifestyles of the well off but mostly unknown" pursuits such as vacations, hobbies and frippery. It was designed to help the poor to not starve outside. This sense of entitlement by those who can afford to buy their own shit is a major source of the problem with social security and other programs. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,804 by drook 1/30/12 5:58:13 PM Reply	No This sense of entitlement by those who can afford to buy their own shit is a major source of the problem with social security and other programs. I'll assume "those who can afford to buy their own shit" means your hypothetical person with $400k in the bank. And again, giving them all Social Security benefits (aka no means testing) would be completely dwarfed by removing the cap on the very rich. So no, they are not a major source of the problem. -- Drew
Post #353,805 by boxley 1/30/12 7:04:44 PM Reply	So you should be able to have someone richer than you pay for your lifestyle, nice sense of self sufficiency you have going there Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,810 by drook 1/30/12 8:31:57 PM Reply	Do you want to talk macro or micro? You started out arguing about what was good for the program, that people getting benefits they don't absolutely need are a major problem. I said the money to be saved with means testing is dwarfed by the money to be gained by removing the cap. Since you apparently can't disagree with that (and you can't) now you're changing to a morality argument, that people who take benefits before they are flat broke are freeloaders. If you want to make that argument, at least admit you don't care what's good for the system and you're just offended by anyone taking benefits that you think they could/should do without. -- Drew
Post #353,813 by boxley 1/30/12 9:06:17 PM Reply	hmm, thats not how this thread started steal from the other guy and pass the savings onto you. People with $400k and more in a 401k or ira collect a government check when they hit 65. Poor people could have a fatter check and the government could better afford the program if you had to wait until the bank accounts hit 5k before getting the first Social Security check. That is fair. After all you can have 2k in the bank and collect food stamps. was my first post and you have been trying to change the subject every post to claiming that getting a check while sitting on a pile of cash is okay because rich people will pay for it As for caring about the system, getting the means test in for those who really need it will free up spending for housing, eduction, medical care, and debt repayment, not frippery and vacations for the middle class. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,814 by Another Scott 1/30/12 9:18:05 PM Reply	No it won't. Means testing won't save much money, as drook keeps telling you. What means testing will do is change it from a universal entitlement to a "welfare" system and lessen political support for it. That's the whole point - to gut it as a political gesture, not to save money. http://krugman.blogs...testing-medicare/ Don't like PK? Here's another - http://www.reuters.c...TRE8091PT20120110 Look at the numbers instead of trusting your gut on things like this. Truthiness isn't truth. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,816 by drook 1/30/12 9:25:01 PM Reply	Yup, scale -- Drew
Post #353,817 by boxley 1/30/12 9:26:44 PM Reply	so its okay to get freebies from the government when you have your own dough, back to the first post steal from the other guy and pass the savings onto you glad to know how the rugged individualism of the republicans is matched by the democrats Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,818 by Another Scott 1/30/12 9:28:55 PM Reply	SS and Medicare aren't freebies. Open your ears.
Post #353,820 by boxley 1/30/12 9:37:36 PM Reply	you open yours I dont need the numbers but do some personal math how much have you paid into Social security? Take your paid in and at max benefit ( making an assumption you are both at max) Example: A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman). A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000. http://www.bankrate....benefits-vs-taxes I imagine you both plan to into yer 80's :-) Maybe you should use yer own money first before helping to drain the public trough Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #353,821 by drook 1/30/12 10:00:20 PM Reply	What's your complaint? What problem are you solving? Is it that some people receive more in benefits than they paid into the system? If that's the case, then poor people should never receive benefits because they didn't put anything in. The whole point of the safety net is that those who can afford to pay more cover the people who need it. What you seem to want -- you only get to take out what you put in -- is nothing but an enforced savings account. That's just stupid. -- Drew
Post #353,822 by Another Scott 1/30/12 10:18:32 PM Reply	... http://ssa-custhelp....rs/detail/a_id/13 The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,177 at the beginning of 2011. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits. People get Social Security as a result of paying into the insurance funds. It's not "freebies". Means testing Social Security isn't going to save much money. She's wrong that Social Security "isn't sustainable". Very modest changes in the tax rates and income limits and maybe a tweak of the inflation formula will fully fund it effectively forever. She's scaremongering. FDR in 1934 - http://www.ssa.gov/h...tmts.html#advisec I am glad to welcome you to the White House and tell you that I am happy that there is so much interest in the problem of economic security. Last June I said that this winter we might well make a beginning in the great task of providing social insurance for the citizen and his family. I have not changed my opinion. I shall have recommendations on this subject to present to the incoming Congress. Many details are still to be settled. The Committee on Economic Security was created to advise me on this matter. It will bring to me, not any preconceived views, but a mature judgment after careful study of the problem and after consultation with the Advisory Conference and the cooperating committees. On some points it is possible to be definite. Unemployment insurance will be in the program. I am still of the opinion expressed in my message of June eighth that this part of social insurance should be a cooperative Federal-State undertaking. It is important that the Federal Government encourage States which are ready to take this progressive step. It is no less important that all unemployment insurance reserve funds be held and invested by the Federal Government, so that the use of these funds as a means of stabilization may be maintained in central management and employed on a national basis. Unemployment insurance must be set up with the purpose of decreasing rather than increasing unemployment. It is, of course, clear that because of their magnitude the investment and liquidation of reserve funds must be within control of the Government itself. For the administration of insurance benefits, the States are the most logical units. At this stage, while unemployment insurance is still untried in this country and there is such a great diversity of opinion on many details, there is room for some degree of difference in methods, though not in principles. That would be impossible under an exclusively national system. And so I can say to you who have come from all parts of the country that not only will there have to be a Federal law on unemployment insurance, but State laws will also be needed. In January the great majority of the State Legislatures will convene, as well as Congress. You who are interested in seeing that unemployment insurance is established on a nationwide basis should make your plans accordingly. We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be financed by contributions, not taxes. What I have said must not be understood as implying that we should do nothing further for the people now on relief. On the contrary, they must be our first concern. We must get them back into productive employment and as we do so we can bring them under the protection of the insurance system. Let us profit by the mistakes of foreign countries and keep out of unemployment insurance every element which is actuarially unsound. There are other matters with which we must deal before we shall give adequate protection to the individual against the many economic hazards. Old age is at once the most certain, and for many people the most tragic of all hazards. There is no tragedy in growing old, but there is tragedy in growing old without means of support. [...] (Emphasis added.) Your strawman person with $400k in the bank who retires now might pay taxes on their Social Security benefits already - http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits. No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you: - file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is -- between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits. -- more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable. - file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is -- between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits -- more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable. [...] I think I'm done. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,899 by S1mon_Jester 2/1/12 10:14:12 PM Reply	That's only 1/2 the equasion.... I'll admit that someone who lives to their 80s probably does take out more than they put in. Next question...how many live to their 80s? Back in 2007, less than 1/2 of men made it that far. So, for some we don't pay that much. Okay...how many die prior to 65? Again, for men, it's roughly 20% back in 2007. They've worked their entire lives, put money into the system and....get (practically) nothing. My dad died at 64 (Pancreatic Cancer). Mom died at 64 (sleep apnea). Neither got a dime from Medicare/Medicaid or SSN yet paid in the entire time. Finally...everyone argues Medicare is the huge issue...yet retirement for SS has increased already. (I can't retire at 65). Medicare still kicks in at 65. (Simple solution? Tie to SS)
Post #353,900 by Another Scott 2/1/12 10:33:11 PM Reply	Delaying Medicare won't save money. (Condolences about your folks. J's parents lived to 88 and 90.) http://www.nytimes.c...on/13krugman.html Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,902 by S1mon_Jester 2/1/12 11:58:01 PM Reply	I like Krugman But I'm not sure I agree with his theory that people will "wait" for Medicare. Yes they can...and it's a risky game. In effect, that's what my mom was trying to do...and the result is that people who do play that game can end up collecting none of Medicare.
Post #353,866 by mmoffitt 2/1/12 9:50:58 AM Reply	Re: stealing. How did the hypothetical guy with 400K get that money? Taking the value of the labor of others for himself? Establishing a lobbying firm that owns the government? Oh, sorry, this is Murica. That kind of theft is called profit and it's a good thing, right? You are quite right that it was initially a "Widowers fund" created so the widows wouldn't starve when their husbands died. But that was back when a family could be raised (and most often was) on a single income. Back when every worker knew what "30 and out" meant -> that he'd get a pension from the corporation he worked for whose shareholders capitalized on his labor for 30 years and enjoyed the excesses made possible by that labor. In short, back when the shareholders realized they owed something to their workforce. That was a very long time ago. Social Security became a de facto pension plan in this country only when corporations abandoned their employees.
Post #353,869 by folkert 2/1/12 10:20:13 AM Reply	Re: stealing. mmoffitt blathered: Social Security became a de facto pension plan in this country only when corporations abandoned their employees. HOW DARE you insinuate that Murica's most important people did such a thing. I mean come on... they made Corporations into people so that they'd be more lovable and people would enjoy slaving for them. Sheesh... what are you man, a Socialist?
Post #353,880 by mmoffitt 2/1/12 1:01:17 PM Reply	No, I'm a Marxist. Ask nearly anybody on this board. ;0)
Post #353,876 by beepster 2/1/12 11:42:21 AM Reply	Bzzzt it was initially a "Widowers fund" created so the widows wouldn't starve when their husbands died The initial law did not include survivor benefits. They were added 4 yrs later. http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html It was a retirement program for workers. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #353,879 by mmoffitt 2/1/12 12:58:41 PM Reply	Bzzzt back. Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program You're correct thought. It didn't pay survivor benefits until 4 years after it started.
Post #353,889 by boxley 2/1/12 4:50:48 PM Reply	money he wasnt paying taxes on otherwise the gummint gets it Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!