About Us

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?

[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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

Harryk

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.

A_boaterer

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****.

L G[_34_]

A_boaterer wrote:
In ,
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****.

You're right! The chronic liar said he wasn't a union member.

L G[_34_]

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?

[email protected]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400, 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.

Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Harryk

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
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.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

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