Politics and Religion

We both have an issue with SS, but in different ways
St. Croix 470 reads
posted

I believe the confusion is between yearly income vs wealth. I now realize my error in saying increasing or lifting the cap. I'm not in your league from a yearly income point of view. I totally get your point. Like I said in my reply to Jack, I'm being self serving, but from a wealth perspective, not a yearly perspective. And yes, if they raised the $118K, I'll be screwed as well, but not to your degree.  

If I could have had the option of not taking SS years ago, I would have gladly opted out. But since I'm 10 years or so from SS, depending on when I take it, I'm not in the mood to be means tested based on wealth.

We both have valid points, though I doubt we will get any sympathy from the Progressives.
Posted By: GaGambler
but put a zero behind that and lets say you make $1.5 MM, and even worse you are self employed putting your Payroll tax at over 15%.  For the tax year 2015 your taxable earnings are capped at $118,500 meaning your maximum social security contribution is around 18 grand. By eliminating the cap your entire $1.5 million is subject to SS, putting your liability up to over $180,000.00.  
   
 Which would you prefer, losing thirty grand a year of so, or putting an additional million plus dollars into a system that most likely will still fuck you out of ever collecting a penny of your own hard earned money.  Do you really want to do the math for how much you'd get fucked out of if you ever made any real money? How about some lucky fucker who makes $15,000,000 a year, is it REALLY fair for him to have to pay almost $2,000,000 in just payroll taxes in addition to Federal, state and local taxes?  
   
 Fuck that, screw me out of my SS, but don't even think about taking that much money out of my pocket just because I worked hard or smart enough to make a few bucks.
-- Modified on 7/23/2015 9:54:42 PM

thisbud4u1289 reads

Jeb wants to end MEDICARE for all future Seniors reaching 65.    Then the Cuban gave a threat that Iran Nuclear Deal may be gone with a new President in 2017.   He still believes it is an agreement between President Obama and Iran.    

The first one about MEDICARE, he did not offer what those unfortunate Seniors will get instead.

The Cuban still forgets that there are 5 other countries who approved and signed the deal and are not under control of the US Senators working for Israel.    He cannot stop them and rest of the countries from dealing with Iran.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-iran-deal-could-go-away-with-obama_55b12d21e4b08f57d5d3f1a7?

We have enough native Republican nuts already here and do we need a Cuban too?

That shows me some balls. It's a debate the country desperately needs to have. The status quo will lead to a collapse of the system as CBO has stated it is unsustainable.

The first thing we need to do is get the fkin wealthy off of it. That's ridiculous. Billionaire Warren Buffet is getting subsidized HC? Wtf?

If you know nothing else about Medicare, that alone should tell you how screwed up it is.

GaGambler308 reads

Even if that means me. I am also all for means testing where it comes to Social Security. I have no expectations of ever drawing a penny, nor do I hope to ever need to. If given a choice between putting an unlimited amount of money into the system to keep it afloat, or to make it a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement that every one expects to get their turn at the trough, I am all for never seeing a dime of what I've put in. I am sure there are millions of other people who can do just fine without Social Security to ensure that those either through bad luck or bad planning, don't spend their last few years living in the gutter.

St. Croix381 reads

Why not give the liberals the keys to my house as well.  

As an example, I've accumulated some wealth, through not living beyond my means, 401K discipline, paying off my house early, investing, and just being disciplined. So you want me to forego the social security I've earned, where someone else who may have had the same income, but has made bad decisions, gets his/her social security.  

If you want to play around the edges of SS with increasing or lifting the income cap, OK. But SS is already a progressively designed payout system.  

Posted By: GaGambler
Even if that means me. I am also all for means testing where it comes to Social Security. I have no expectations of ever drawing a penny, nor do I hope to ever need to. If given a choice between putting an unlimited amount of money into the system to keep it afloat, or to make it a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement that every one expects to get their turn at the trough, I am all for never seeing a dime of what I've put in. I am sure there are millions of other people who can do just fine without Social Security to ensure that those either through bad luck or bad planning, don't spend their last few years living in the gutter.

GaGambler333 reads

but put a zero behind that and lets say you make $1.5 MM, and even worse you are self employed putting your Payroll tax at over 15%.  For the tax year 2015 your taxable earnings are capped at $118,500 meaning your maximum social security contribution is around 18 grand. By eliminating the cap your entire $1.5 million is subject to SS, putting your liability up to over $180,000.00.  

Which would you prefer, losing thirty grand a year of so, or putting an additional million plus dollars into a system that most likely will still fuck you out of ever collecting a penny of your own hard earned money.  Do you really want to do the math for how much you'd get fucked out of if you ever made any real money? How about some lucky fucker who makes $15,000,000 a year, is it REALLY fair for him to have to pay almost $2,000,000 in just payroll taxes in addition to Federal, state and local taxes?

Fuck that, screw me out of my SS, but don't even think about taking that much money out of my pocket just because I worked hard or smart enough to make a few bucks.

St. Croix471 reads

I believe the confusion is between yearly income vs wealth. I now realize my error in saying increasing or lifting the cap. I'm not in your league from a yearly income point of view. I totally get your point. Like I said in my reply to Jack, I'm being self serving, but from a wealth perspective, not a yearly perspective. And yes, if they raised the $118K, I'll be screwed as well, but not to your degree.  

If I could have had the option of not taking SS years ago, I would have gladly opted out. But since I'm 10 years or so from SS, depending on when I take it, I'm not in the mood to be means tested based on wealth.

We both have valid points, though I doubt we will get any sympathy from the Progressives.

Posted By: GaGambler
but put a zero behind that and lets say you make $1.5 MM, and even worse you are self employed putting your Payroll tax at over 15%.  For the tax year 2015 your taxable earnings are capped at $118,500 meaning your maximum social security contribution is around 18 grand. By eliminating the cap your entire $1.5 million is subject to SS, putting your liability up to over $180,000.00.  
   
 Which would you prefer, losing thirty grand a year of so, or putting an additional million plus dollars into a system that most likely will still fuck you out of ever collecting a penny of your own hard earned money.  Do you really want to do the math for how much you'd get fucked out of if you ever made any real money? How about some lucky fucker who makes $15,000,000 a year, is it REALLY fair for him to have to pay almost $2,000,000 in just payroll taxes in addition to Federal, state and local taxes?  
   
 Fuck that, screw me out of my SS, but don't even think about taking that much money out of my pocket just because I worked hard or smart enough to make a few bucks.
-- Modified on 7/23/2015 9:54:42 PM

Once we start means testing, we then have to decide how rich is rich enough. How much wealth is too much. Where's the back stop to limit the reach further down the wealth scale?  

The greatest risk of potential tragedy to the person that decided to lower his standard of living during working years (saved more and/or worked harder), in order to have a higher standard during retirement, only to have it reduced once he retires. If more revenue is needed, increase the stream from income first (earned and unearned) not wealth.

Medicare tax rates have already been increased on incomes over $200K/$250K.

You haven't drawn a SS check yet but the income stream for retirees is already progressively taxed based on AGI, up to making 80% of SS income subject to income tax.

thisbud4u278 reads

Bush is a hypocrite.   He wants the money to invade countries in Middle East.   I am sure Bernie will kill him on this topic about Medicare.     Cut the Defense budget by 75%, close all military bases around the world, move the money in to Social Security and Medicare.    Medicare premiums are progressive based on income.

Mitt brought it up and lost.   So will be GOP clowns who think they can gut Medicare and Social Security.

St. Croix341 reads

which is standard when anyone has a comment about Medicare or Social Security.  

I'm actually willing to have a discussion with Progressives on Medicare as a single payer system, which they only want if they can't get Universal Health Care. But my main problem with Medicare is that it's a fraud riddled, abused, fucked up bureaucratic system run by idiots. First point, it's a pay first then chase system. Private insurance is a chase first, then pay. ABC just did a segment that over $60B "so-called" Medicare reimbursements are sent out to addresses that are NEVER checked, like P.O. Boxes. See where the pay first is a problem. Now add upwards of $50B or so in your garden variety fraud. Providers purposely billing the wrong CPT code to get more money. Did I mention there are over 10,000 CPT codes. Providers billing for services that are not necessary. Then you've got various gangs from other countries ripping off Medicare.  

If any progressive wants to have a discussion about Medicare as a single payer system, address the fraud and abuse, otherwise I'm not interested.  

P.S. The wealthy already pay a premium on Part B based on their income, which I'm fine with, but don't even think about means testing this shit.

The program is going bankrupt and will be in dire shape in just 10 years.

Of course we need to rid the system of waste, fraud and abuse but I dont have a lot of faith in govt to do that to any serious degree.

But Jesus H. Christ Croix, if we can't kick millionaires and billionaires off of subsidized medicine and retirement vehicles, we are totally fucked. The country is living longer with each passing decade and will have much more need for HC on account of it.

I don't mind paying for the poor and the middle class but paying for rich fks sitting on a yacht and having his social security check mailed to his beach side second home is a bridge too far.

St. Croix367 reads

Like I've said in the previous post, I've done the right things. There is a guy down the street from me. Makes a good money. He has made the decisions to lease expensive cars, take expensive vacations, have expensive hobbies (not this one), and not think about the future. He has made poor life decisions. He doesn't have a pot to piss in. So what you are saying is too bad St. Croix. You've accumulated wealth, and as a result, you need to be punished for it. What kind of example are you setting?

Jack, there are approximately 9 million millionaires in the U.S. Millionaire defined as someone with at least a million investable dollars. So this excludes real estate. This is going to sound somewhat arrogant, but it's not difficult to become a millionaire, if you the right things. Jack, of the 9 million millionaires, I think 8.5M are just millionaires, meaning more than 1 less than 10. I'm not at 10.  

Let me put it in math terms. You retire with $1M in an IRA. If you follow the 4% rule, as the experts say you should, your annual IRA distribution would be $40,000. Could  you live on $40,000? That's where Social Security, and other investments may come into play.  

I don't have a yacht. I don't have a second home. Do you still want to means test me? Don't lump me in with your Buffett examples. I hope you understand

Posted By: JackDunphy
The program is going bankrupt and will be in dire shape in just 10 years.  
   
 Of course we need to rid the system of waste, fraud and abuse but I dont have a lot of faith in govt to do that to any serious degree.  
   
 But Jesus H. Christ Croix, if we can't kick millionaires and billionaires off of subsidized medicine and retirement vehicles, we are totally fucked. The country is living longer with each passing decade and will have much more need for HC on account of it.  
   
 I don't mind paying for the poor and the middle class but paying for rich fks sitting on a yacht and having his social security check mailed to his beach side second home is a bridge too far.

I am not saying it is FAIR to take away from the rich, I am saying it is an economic reality/necessity.

Look, people at Enron were made promises and they got fked, right?

Ask the police and others with similar pensions in Detroit how they are doing. They got fked.

The U.S. govt has made promises it can't keep. Sorry Croix.

So what do we do? Cut back the poor's benefits? Come on.

We can't raise taxes enough to cover our problem. I don't think doing that helps society anyway. When I hear D's say the rich have to pay there fair share, I wanna puke.  

Don't punish success. Take away their loopholes. Tax deductions for mortgage interest for one. SS and Medicare is just something we can't afford.

Means testing doesn't mean you would get squat. There would be a phase out. Look, I am not an expert and I don't know where to draw the line. One million on the nose? Maybe you are in the phase out block without you being completely out.  

But $2 million? Buy your own fkin HC insurance and watch your spending. LOL

I haven't seen any answers from you re: the problem other than to basically say NIMBY.  

What is your solution to entitlement programs that are going broke????  

I am open to your suggestions but we either have some pain now or tons of pain and a total collapse of the system later.

St. Croix470 reads

or how about "Shared Responsibility", or "Shared Sacrifice". Did you just drink some Progressive lemonade? Those cute little  Progressive bumper stickers are code for income redistribution through higher and higher taxes. My taxation for federal, state, local, property, blah, blah, blah runs about 50%. I really don't care how they spend it, but I'll fight like hell not to give them more.

When you have time look at the 2008 federal budget. Then look at each succeeding year through 2015  and you will discover the problem. Federal government share of GDP has been increasing. But I guess at 23/24% it's not enough. They need more. Hillary now want to screw with Capital Gains taxes. Didn't they just increase them a few years ago.  

Like I said in an earlier post Medicare is a $525B a year program. I've heard anywhere from $60B to $100B in annual fraud and abuse. Since that's going bankrupt, you want me to pay more in taxes to fund a program that is riddled with abuse. How about if Medicare just change from a "Pay and Chase" to a "Chase and Pay" system, as they private insurance does. If they want more money, they will have to enact some changes first.  

The IRS collects approximately $.86 out of every potential taxable dollar. Actually that's not bad. We have a very compliant population. Where is the other $.14? It's in the underground or cash economy. If the IRS was able to collect that extra $.14, it would add almost $500B. Should we move away from a W-2 based system for collecting taxes, or streamline the tax code to reduce cheating?

Since most cities and states appear to approving a $15 minimum wage, what happens to the SNAP program (food stamps)? Does that program get reduced? Does the new minimum wage reduce the need for the earned income tax credit?

Do you see where I'm going Jack? There are multiple opportunities just to capture lost taxes and reduce waste and abuse. Let's try that first before increasing taxes again.  

And regarding Enron. I can't believe you have sympathy for them. The majority of the employees loaded up their 401K plan with Enron shares. How smart was that? What do the so-called experts say? Maybe 5%, but no more than 10% of your 401K money should be allocated to ONE stock? Sorry, but I have ZERO sympathy for ex-Enron employees.  

 

Posted By: JackDunphy
I am not saying it is FAIR to take away from the rich, I am saying it is an economic reality/necessity.  
   
 Look, people at Enron were made promises and they got fked, right?  
   
 Ask the police and others with similar pensions in Detroit how they are doing. They got fked.  
   
 The U.S. govt has made promises it can't keep. Sorry Croix.  
   
 So what do we do? Cut back the poor's benefits? Come on.  
   
 We can't raise taxes enough to cover our problem. I don't think doing that helps society anyway. When I hear D's say the rich have to pay there fair share, I wanna puke.  
   
 Don't punish success. Take away their loopholes. Tax deductions for mortgage interest for one. SS and Medicare is just something we can't afford.  
   
 Means testing doesn't mean you would get squat. There would be a phase out. Look, I am not an expert and I don't know where to draw the line. One million on the nose? Maybe you are in the phase out block without you being completely out.  
   
 But $2 million? Buy your own fkin HC insurance and watch your spending. LOL  
   
 I haven't seen any answers from you re: the problem other than to basically say NIMBY.  
   
 What is your solution to entitlement programs that are going broke????  
   
 I am open to your suggestions but we either have some pain now or tons of pain and a total collapse of the system later.
-- Modified on 7/24/2015 5:49:23 PM

This isn’t any sort of solution proposal but just a simple observation. If you can’t manage an operation without losing money year after year then maybe you’re in the wrong business or someone else should be managing things. Oh that nasty thing called profit motive found in privately managed health insurance and even pensions (and also real accountability to stakeholders). It seems to serve a useful purpose to make things run efficiently (or at least efficient enough.

.....How about we phase out the military and use that money for our citizens health?

 

Posted By: thisbud4u
Jeb wants to end MEDICARE for all future Seniors reaching 65.    Then the Cuban gave a threat that Iran Nuclear Deal may be gone with a new President in 2017.   He still believes it is an agreement between President Obama and Iran.    
   
 The first one about MEDICARE, he did not offer what those unfortunate Seniors will get instead.  
   
 The Cuban still forgets that there are 5 other countries who approved and signed the deal and are not under control of the US Senators working for Israel.    He cannot stop them and rest of the countries from dealing with Iran.    
   
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-iran-deal-could-go-away-with-obama_55b12d21e4b08f57d5d3f1a7?  
   
 We have enough native Republican nuts already here and do we need a Cuban too?
-- Modified on 7/24/2015 8:25:42 AM

-- Modified on 7/24/2015 8:33:16 AM

Register Now!