so its okay to get freebies from the government

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!