| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#132
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama endorses slavery
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:14:00 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:18:28 -0700, wrote: 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. I said that, it was one of the "boaters" who said it wasn't a means test. I just believe that will increase until a person who has any significant income will not actually get any SS. We might need to raise the age, but it must be done slowly not overnight. I agree that is how it will have to get done but they better start pretty soon. Time is running out pretty fast. We are already on the down slope of solvency. It doesn't matter. Your post is off topic. Are you having trouble staying on topic again?? |
|
#133
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:17:57 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:25:04 -0700, wrote: 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. Not with the Obama payroll tax cut. It can never recover from that, even if we had 2006 employment levels. Oh come on. That's so nonsensical to not past the sniff test. 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? You are arguing with Boater You're off topic. 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. We agree then Agree that the rich should pay more, that they should have to either pay taxes on SS or not receive it, that the right will do anything to ensure the rich never have to worry? Yes, we agree. 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. He also removed a lot of tax shelters in 1986 too. Did that get you? He also raised taxes and increased military bloat. He funded terrorists even though it was against the law, and he cut and ran in Lebanon. |
|
#134
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:48:19 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, wrote: That's not clear that it's done. SS will turn around in the next few years as employment and the economy improve. Not with the Obama payroll tax cut. It can never recover from that, even if we had 2006 employment levels. Oh come on. That's so nonsensical to not past the sniff test. OK prove it. Tell us the number of employees that rate would add, the lesser amount you get with a 14% tax cut, then factor in the extra boomers who have entered the SS benefit program since 2006 and get back to me. The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited. I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday. I waited until I was 64. If you run the spread sheet, taking at 62 breaks even at age 78 or so for most people. By waiting until 64, I pushed that out to 84 or so. Of course that assumes you spend the money. I am investing it. That is a win-win. I get a better return and if I really need it, I have it. You said "never." You're making stuff up. You're happy to believe "projections" that go out dozens of years, but you're unwilling to look at something that would happen within weeks. So much for your "fact" based arguments. |
|
#135
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#136
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... wrote: The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited. I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday. I waited until I was 64. I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from providers. Bull****. |
|
#137
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#138
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
BAR wrote:
In , says... 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? I guess there are no unions involved in making military hardware and providing the military goods and services. Look up the word "transition." Why waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the military? |
|
#139
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:13 -0400, 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. Can you show proof that is still true? |
|
#140
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
Harryk wrote:
wrote: The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited. I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday. I waited until I was 64. I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from providers. What happened to all of that bull**** about hiring more people, no cost health care, etc.....? Now you are a one man operation? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery | General | |||
| Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama! | General | |||
| Colin Powell Endorses... | General | |||
| Union endorses Republican... | General | |||
| Communist Party endorses Kerry | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
