In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:


I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)

And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?
Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%
So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.

OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?
I don't. I haven't even applied yet, and I am eligible for the full
amount, which is, what, about $2400 a month? No medicare, either.

The top of the box for age 66 is $2366 if you paid in the max since
1966. (45 years). I only paid in the max for 30 years (66-96), started
drawing at 63.5 years and my check with single 00 withholding is
$1506, Gross is 1772. At 66 that would have been a bit over $2000 as I
recall. I have a statement around here from 2010 with the real
numbers. I think it was $2400 if you wait to 70.


Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?

That was not the original intent...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:30:32 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex
We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp

There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.


They are competing with Blue Cross and the rest of the for profit
companies. I didn't look at the plans but I am betting the
differences are minimal.
The "government employee" thing doesn't impress me. I am old enough to
know what Geico stands for and now that is Warren Buffett


Back when I was marketing a plan, the differences between the plans were
substantial, and the plans themselves, the feds and the old Federal
Times published charts and other comparisons that made it fairly easy to
compare prices and coverage. Not so easy to do that in the so-called
private sector.

I don't get your GEICO connection. The FEHBA program is not operated
like a casualty insurance schema.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:30:32 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex
We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp

There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.


They are competing with Blue Cross and the rest of the for profit
companies. I didn't look at the plans but I am betting the
differences are minimal.
The "government employee" thing doesn't impress me. I am old enough to
know what Geico stands for and now that is Warren Buffett


Back when I was marketing a plan, the differences between the plans were
substantial, and the plans themselves, the feds and the old Federal
Times published charts and other comparisons that made it fairly easy to
compare prices and coverage. Not so easy to do that in the so-called
private sector.

I don't get your GEICO connection. The FEHBA program is not operated
like a casualty insurance schema.

Harry peddled insurance!!!

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:26:05 -0400, wrote:

In articlew9Kdna3PJdOvqDLQnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:

I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)

And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?
Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%
So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.
OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?
I don't. I haven't even applied yet, and I am eligible for the full
amount, which is, what, about $2400 a month? No medicare, either.
The top of the box for age 66 is $2366 if you paid in the max since
1966. (45 years). I only paid in the max for 30 years (66-96), started
drawing at 63.5 years and my check with single 00 withholding is
$1506, Gross is 1772. At 66 that would have been a bit over $2000 as I
recall. I have a statement around here from 2010 with the real
numbers. I think it was $2400 if you wait to 70.

Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.



Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.

Actually, I'm not retired. I hope I stay in decent enough health to
never retire. Since I don't need social security, I've not applied for
it. When and if I do need it, I will apply. When my medical need$ start
ta$king my union health insurance plan, I'll request being dropped from
it and get Medicare. I have, after all, been paying into the federal
system(s) a long, long time. :)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?


Correct. They may have to pay taxes, but that's small potatoes for
people at that income level.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:45:50 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:00:59 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:09:06 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.


The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The
rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of
the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to
buy them from us.
That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our
debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more
than we sell only making the problem worse.

Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't
beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was..

Obama is closer. He gave them more financial assistance.

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

Firstly, there is no such thing as Obamacare. Secondly, the reason the
insurance companies love it is because of two things. The
obstructionism by the right wing and the Democrats' inability to stand
up and be counted.

The insurance companies love the healthcare bill is because it was
written by a couple of Wellpoint lobbyists. I can understand why Obama
wants to disavow it but it was still on his watch.

It's still better than what we had before. More people are covered and
even better aspects have yet to kick in.

The GOP can honestly say they had nothing to do with it. They were not
included in the senate process where the bill was written and they
didn't vote for it.

Total nonsense. Many of their suggestions were included. That's just
right wing nonsense.

This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:32:51 -0700, wrote:



This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Yet the health care bill did nothing to limit their take. Well that is
not exactly true, you limited it to 20% but the worst case scenario
had the current insurance company overhead at 17%.

They're required to spend more of the money on healthcare. But, beyond
that, I thought profit and free enterprise are the right wing mantra.
If so, why are you complaining about how much the ins. companies make?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:01:13 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:48:26 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:32:51 -0700, wrote:



This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Yet the health care bill did nothing to limit their take. Well that is
not exactly true, you limited it to 20% but the worst case scenario
had the current insurance company overhead at 17%.

They're required to spend more of the money on healthcare. But, beyond
that, I thought profit and free enterprise are the right wing mantra.
If so, why are you complaining about how much the ins. companies make?

It is more the hypocrisy of you not complaining about a bill that
gives insurance companies 20% cap when they were only taking 17 when
you claim it is better for the consumer.

Me not complaining? I've complained about it from the beginning.
You're the one who seems to be saying that you've got yours and to
hell with everyone else.

The fact is that the current healthcare reform legislation IS better
for the consumer. It's flawed and should be fixed, but it is better
than what we had before.

I really do not believe this will do anything to cut the cost of
health care.

Yes, I've heard you say that. You don't have any facts to support it,
but I've heard you say it.