About Us

A_boaterer

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.
That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?

Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."
When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.

All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.
What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.

What's really sad is how our tax dollars are wasted, instead of doing
good for the citizens. We should be slashing the military budget and
hitting corporations that export jobs with very special taxes, and, if
they head offshore, levy taxes on the goods and services they want to
sell here.

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T

Don't play stupid.
The SS revenue shortfall is a tiny, tiny percentage of the budget.
How many time do I have to tell you that $2T is payback over 26 years,
IF NOTHING HAPPENS TO INCREASE SS REVENUES!
Pretty obvious you view SS as a commie conspiracy to sap our precious
bodily fluids.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.

No, you said you were already being means tested because you paid some
tax on SS benefits.
I already explained SS benefits are income, and subject to the
progressive income tax system.
You cut that out so you could continue with a lame argument.

You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

There you go again - as RR would say.
Claiming you are being means tested, when you're not.
Means testing is actually a difficult solution.
It requires a determination of net worth.
Even the IRS can't do that without adding 100,000 auditors.
They should probably call it income testing, which is how it would work
if they ever do it.
For example, they set the cutoff at $150k income.
Anything over $150k the SS income is taxed at 100%.
As it is now only 85% of SS income is taxed at marginal rates once
income hit $44k. SS income is NOT taxed at all until income hit $32k.

BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
I thought everybody has talked with old folks who tell you that.
You been in a monastery?
Look Greg, this is rec.boats.
Do you actually think there are dummies here?

John H[_2_]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, A_boaterer wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.

I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Harryk

John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.

I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

We waste more than four times the amount the PRC wastes on military
spending. Our military budget by some estimates approaches $700 billion
a year, while the Chinese spend about $150 billion.

If we cut our military spending in half, we'd still be spending more
than twice what the PRC spends.

What a waste, for both countries.

[email protected]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:40:29 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:24:26 -0700, wrote:

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

The point is they are chipping away at the promise (we were told SS
would never be taxed), to make SS more solvent but, as you say, the
effect is minimal. I bet there are more promises that will be made
"inoperative" as this problem continues.

SS benefits are not taxed until you reach the threshold. Then you're
taxed. Why is that a problem for you?

There is no "chipping away," unless you mean the Republicans in the
House and Senate.

SS was supposed to always be tax free, at least that was the promise
when I started paying my FICA into it. Now it is taxed. I still bet it
will virtually be confiscated in the future if you have any other
significant source of income. My SS and pension alone is enough to
trip the tax trigger now and I haven't tapped my 401k yet.

Two things are certain to happen if SS is going to survive. The age
will go up and there will be a means test.
I know you deny it but you are in denial about all of these debt
problems.

Sure. Well, I'm not sure when you started paying into it, but in the
last millennium or so it's taxed after you reach the threshold.

There's already a "means" test, since if you make more than a certain
amount, it's taxed. It's possible that the age might have to be raised
and while that might be ok for white-collar workers, it's probably not
a very good thing for blue-collar.

Harryk

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

[email protected]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:19:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:43:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:40:29 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:24:26 -0700, wrote:

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

The point is they are chipping away at the promise (we were told SS
would never be taxed), to make SS more solvent but, as you say, the
effect is minimal. I bet there are more promises that will be made
"inoperative" as this problem continues.

SS benefits are not taxed until you reach the threshold. Then you're
taxed. Why is that a problem for you?

There is no "chipping away," unless you mean the Republicans in the
House and Senate.

SS was supposed to always be tax free, at least that was the promise
when I started paying my FICA into it. Now it is taxed. I still bet it
will virtually be confiscated in the future if you have any other
significant source of income. My SS and pension alone is enough to
trip the tax trigger now and I haven't tapped my 401k yet.

Two things are certain to happen if SS is going to survive. The age
will go up and there will be a means test.
I know you deny it but you are in denial about all of these debt
problems.

Sure. Well, I'm not sure when you started paying into it, but in the
last millennium or so it's taxed after you reach the threshold.

There's already a "means" test, since if you make more than a certain
amount, it's taxed. It's possible that the age might have to be raised
and while that might be ok for white-collar workers, it's probably not
a very good thing for blue-collar.

I made my first FICA payment in 1965. I started working in 1962 but I
didn't make $500 each year so I didn't pay SS.

They started taxing SS benefits in 1983 (thanks Ronnie)

I agree the tax is a means test and I bet it gets bigger as SS starts
running into more trouble.

Raising the age for all retirees is just the consequence of people
living longer. Our current pension/SS model is unsustainable.
I paid into a pension plan for 30 years, If I live to 80, I will
collect longer than I worked. How can that be?

So, you agree then that there's already a means test. Thanks.

We might need to raise the age, but it must be done slowly not
overnight.

[email protected]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:57:28 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:19:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T

Don't play stupid.
The SS revenue shortfall is a tiny, tiny percentage of the budget.
How many time do I have to tell you that $2T is payback over 26 years,
IF NOTHING HAPPENS TO INCREASE SS REVENUES!
Pretty obvious you view SS as a commie conspiracy to sap our precious
bodily fluids.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.

No, you said you were already being means tested because you paid some
tax on SS benefits.
I already explained SS benefits are income, and subject to the
progressive income tax system.
You cut that out so you could continue with a lame argument.

It is not the number that is important, only the direction it is
moving. When Clinton was bragging about a budget surplus, he did it in
the back of a $80 Billion Social Security tax surplus that has been
used to prop up the general budget since 1968. That is gone now, never
to return.

That's not clear that it's done. SS will turn around in the next few
years as employment and the economy improve.

You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

There you go again - as RR would say.
Claiming you are being means tested, when you're not.
Means testing is actually a difficult solution.
It requires a determination of net worth.
Even the IRS can't do that without adding 100,000 auditors.
They should probably call it income testing, which is how it would work
if they ever do it.

The government has never looked at net worth when they determine
"means", they only look at income.

Feel free to try and change this. I guess when someone's home drops
50% in value then their SS checks should go up?

For example, they set the cutoff at $150k income.
Anything over $150k the SS income is taxed at 100%.
As it is now only 85% of SS income is taxed at marginal rates once
income hit $44k. SS income is NOT taxed at all until income hit $32k.

That is now, we don't know what will happen in the future but there
will be a push to deny SS to "rich" people.
The current tax is just the first swing at it.

Most "rich" people don't need it. Define rich. I think there is a
large group that could do without.

BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

You must be young.
It was always taken as fact that SS would never be taxed since you put
in "after tax" money. That was the excuse they gave us about why FICA
was not deductible.

Reagan was the one who screwed seniors on that one. (1983)

Reagan did a lot of other screwing of people in general. Thanks for
acknowledging one of the things.

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

The government has never looked at net worth when they determine
"means", they only look at income.

Not the Feds, but Medicaid commonly looks at "resources" to qualify.
The Feds actually have a lot of non-income wealth info at hand.
They can easily pass that to the states.
A $million in IRA's not distributed is still reported to the IRS.
Income is the easiest way, but not the only way.
I've had to reveal bank account balances when my kids applied for
tuition aid, and they got my SS number too, so maybe they knew more.
None ever got aid.
But an income check would be the easiest for SS "means testing".
Still not a real "means test" when it's just an income tax at marginal
rate.
When they take 100% at some level of income we'll call it a means test.

BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

You must be young.
It was always taken as fact that SS would never be taxed since you put
in "after tax" money. That was the excuse they gave us about why FICA
was not deductible.

Reagan was the one who screwed seniors on that one. (1983)

"Kid" is relative. 28 years ago I was a kid.

bob

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:09:49 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:13 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

The problem is figuring a way you could make those products and sell
them at a profit. When it is DoD, cost is no object. That is why the
toilet seat on a P-3 Orion costs $800.

what people dont seem to realize is that every dollar we spend above
what we need for defense

is a form of foreign aid.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery	HK	General	20	June 19th 09 02:15 PM
Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama!	Boater	General	3	October 25th 08 02:04 AM
Colin Powell Endorses...	Boater	General	12	October 20th 08 02:24 AM
Union endorses Republican...	King Vurtang The Loquacious	General	1	August 22nd 08 12:55 PM
Communist Party endorses Kerry	Michael	ASA	21	July 20th 04 05:52 PM

Menu

About Us