In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Still not what I asked.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:45:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Still not what I asked.

The question was meaningless in this context.

SS was never a loan or an investment. It was simply taxation into a
pay as you go program with the government spending the surplus as
ordinary revenue. After 1968 that was made clear when SS was put on
budget. Now that program is not collecting enough to pay as they go
and the government does not seem to have the will to tax at a rate to
maintain the program. We borrow 40% of the shortfall right now. (or
simply print money)
They are not making the money to pay me back at all. They are simply
passing debt on to my kids.

No it wasn't meaningless. It was directly related to what YOU said.

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:47:07 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:45:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Still not what I asked.

The question was meaningless in this context.

SS was never a loan or an investment. It was simply taxation into a
pay as you go program with the government spending the surplus as
ordinary revenue. After 1968 that was made clear when SS was put on
budget. Now that program is not collecting enough to pay as they go
and the government does not seem to have the will to tax at a rate to
maintain the program. We borrow 40% of the shortfall right now. (or
simply print money)
They are not making the money to pay me back at all. They are simply
passing debt on to my kids.

No it wasn't meaningless. It was directly related to what YOU said.

I suppose a direct answer to the question is that I would not consider
it legitimate if they said "I will give you your money as soon as I
can print some"



Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

On 4/1/13 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:26:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:


Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

Sure, just raise the SS tax about 5% and lift the cap.
The problem is finding a politician who would actually do it.

As I said, easy enough to fix.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:31:37 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:51:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:26:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:


Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

Sure, just raise the SS tax about 5% and lift the cap.
The problem is finding a politician who would actually do it.

As I said, easy enough to fix.

We can't even get Democrats to agree to rolling taxes back to the
Clinton rates and the GOP still thinks current taxes are too high.

We are going to keep hurtling from cliff to cliff until we finally
fall over one of them.
We might take the whole world economy down with us.

Huh? The rich are now paying a whopping 4% more? What a tradgety!

You and your fiscally stupid buddies want to hit up the middle class
now, rather than let them recover a bit.

Why don't you tell us about austerity again, and how it'll solve all
our problems.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:51:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:21:24 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:31:37 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:51:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:26:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:


Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

Sure, just raise the SS tax about 5% and lift the cap.
The problem is finding a politician who would actually do it.

As I said, easy enough to fix.

We can't even get Democrats to agree to rolling taxes back to the
Clinton rates and the GOP still thinks current taxes are too high.

We are going to keep hurtling from cliff to cliff until we finally
fall over one of them.
We might take the whole world economy down with us.

Huh? The rich are now paying a whopping 4% more? What a tradgety!

You and your fiscally stupid buddies want to hit up the middle class
now, rather than let them recover a bit.


Your buddy Bill said we could tax him at 100% and it would not fix
this problem.

Did Clinton claim it would fix the problem? No and I didn't either.

But your buddy Bush really helped!

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:46:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:26:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:


Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

Sure, just raise the SS tax about 5% and lift the cap.
The problem is finding a politician who would actually do it.

Or, raise the cap. The problem is that you keep cashing your check.
You're not required to cash it.

Lifting the cap alone is not really that much help. All you really
have to do top see that is look at the delta between Medicare and SS.
Medicare is not capped now.

Bull****.

It has been a couple years since I did it but the numbers are not
really that significant. We just do not have that many W2 people who
make more than the $113.7k that it is capped at now. (I think it was
$102k when I did it)
You can go to IRS.GOV and look at tax stats if you want to see for
yourself. They are in Excel format so you can download the files and
change the view

Feel free to give us your studied, indepth analysis. We know you're an
expert accountant among your other bull****.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:19:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:46:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:26:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/1/13 1:23 PM, wrote:


Any shortfall problems with Social Security are easy enough to fix.

Sure, just raise the SS tax about 5% and lift the cap.
The problem is finding a politician who would actually do it.

Or, raise the cap. The problem is that you keep cashing your check.
You're not required to cash it.

Why should I, you are good for the money. You seem to enjoy paying for
my new boat.

Huh? You're the ****ing hypocrit. "Why should I?" for the good of your
grandkids asshole. You want everyone else to do the "right thing" but
not you.



Lifting the cap alone is not really that much help. All you really
have to do top see that is look at the delta between Medicare and SS.
Medicare is not capped now.

Bull****.

How would you compare it?

They're two completely different programs and need different fixes.

It is actually quite simple SS is capped and Medicare isn't. You have
no problem seeing how much is raised and interpolate what happens when
the cap is lifted on SS.

Apples to oranges. But feel free to look stupid in public.


It has been a couple years since I did it but the numbers are not
really that significant. We just do not have that many W2 people who
make more than the $113.7k that it is capped at now. (I think it was
$102k when I did it)
You can go to IRS.GOV and look at tax stats if you want to see for
yourself. They are in Excel format so you can download the files and
change the view

Feel free to give us your studied, indepth analysis. We know you're an
expert accountant among your other bull****.

I do know how to crunch numbers, it is actually pretty simple to do
this one. Maybe beyond your ability but not that hard.
Maybe when you get to high school you will learn a little elementary
algebra.


Maybe you should try harder to insult me ****head.. you're the ****ing
expert, but you can't even figure out that SS and MC are two
completely different things.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:14:22 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:49:21 -0400, wrote:

Why should I, you are good for the money. You seem to enjoy paying for
my new boat.

Huh? You're the ****ing hypocrit. "Why should I?" for the good of your
grandkids asshole. You want everyone else to do the "right thing" but
not you.

My kids may get most of my SS money when I die.

How's that? The country will be completely bankrupt by then. You've
been talking about for a while now. Doom is in the air, and it's all
your fault.

Lifting the cap alone is not really that much help. All you really
have to do top see that is look at the delta between Medicare and SS.
Medicare is not capped now.

Bull****.

How would you compare it?

They're two completely different programs and need different fixes.

It is actually quite simple SS is capped and Medicare isn't. You have
no problem seeing how much is raised and interpolate what happens when
the cap is lifted on SS.

Apples to oranges. But feel free to look stupid in public.

As usual you totally miss the point.

The point on the top of your head? Didn't miss it at tall.


HI is not capped and raises $182 billion collection 2.9 percent of all
wages, tips.etc
If you uncapped OASDI (presently capped at $106k) you would raise an
extra $140 billion over the $637B we collected in 2010 on a 12.4% tax.
I am not going to use 11 or 12 because the 2% tax holiday skews the
numbers.
That seems like a lot of money but it would barely cover the shortfall
in SS/MC now. That deficit goes up every year.

"While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range
test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for
short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined
trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than
ten years, through 2027. "

If you are going to "fix" SS./MC you need more than simply uncapping
the top limit.

I thought you said MC is uncapped? So, you don't know ****.



It has been a couple years since I did it but the numbers are not
really that significant. We just do not have that many W2 people who
make more than the $113.7k that it is capped at now. (I think it was
$102k when I did it)
You can go to IRS.GOV and look at tax stats if you want to see for
yourself. They are in Excel format so you can download the files and
change the view

Feel free to give us your studied, indepth analysis. We know you're an
expert accountant among your other bull****.

I do know how to crunch numbers, it is actually pretty simple to do
this one. Maybe beyond your ability but not that hard.
Maybe when you get to high school you will learn a little elementary
algebra.


Maybe you should try harder to insult me ****head.. you're the ****ing
expert, but you can't even figure out that SS and MC are two
completely different things.

I know they are different brands of the same basic Ponzi but it does
give you a convenient way to see what happens when you remove the
OASDI cap. HI is not capped and OASDI is, taxing the same salary base.
If you interpolate the result of the OASDI rate to the HI rate you get
the delta.

No. You know how to fake being an intellectual, well-read, and a fair
minded person. What you are is a fraud, but I wouldn't call it a Ponzi
fraud.

You can go to tax stats, look at the raw data and do the computations
based on the percentages but you will still end up with about the
same numbers.


Uh huh. Sure. Bascially, you're pulling the numbers out your ass and
smearing it on your **** to make them look better.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:14:05 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:14:22 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:49:21 -0400, wrote:

Why should I, you are good for the money. You seem to enjoy paying for
my new boat.

Huh? You're the ****ing hypocrit. "Why should I?" for the good of your
grandkids asshole. You want everyone else to do the "right thing" but
not you.

My kids may get most of my SS money when I die.

How's that? The country will be completely bankrupt by then. You've
been talking about for a while now. Doom is in the air, and it's all
your fault.

Gold ammo and MREs


Mildly funny, but you're probably serious.



HI is not capped and raises $182 billion collection 2.9 percent of all
wages, tips.etc
If you uncapped OASDI (presently capped at $106k) you would raise an
extra $140 billion over the $637B we collected in 2010 on a 12.4% tax.
I am not going to use 11 or 12 because the 2% tax holiday skews the
numbers.
That seems like a lot of money but it would barely cover the shortfall
in SS/MC now. That deficit goes up every year.

"While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range
test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for
short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined
trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than
ten years, through 2027. "

That assumes the government can come up with the revenue to redeem
those bonds.
We are borrowing money to pay the interest.

When have we not "come up with the money" to honor our debts? Oh yeah,
ever.

If you are going to "fix" SS./MC you need more than simply uncapping
the top limit.

I thought you said MC is uncapped? So, you don't know ****.

MC (HI) is uncapped and still running a deficit but I hear people,
including you saying uncapping OASDI would fix it all.

MC as I've said and everyone else has said has different issues. Keep
repeating if you think it'll help you.

Uncapping SS in wages will certainly help. In any case, it's a long
term problem not a short term one. But in your little mind if the
issue exists it has to be fixed immediately.


It has been a couple years since I did it but the numbers are not
really that significant. We just do not have that many W2 people who
make more than the $113.7k that it is capped at now. (I think it was
$102k when I did it)
You can go to IRS.GOV and look at tax stats if you want to see for
yourself. They are in Excel format so you can download the files and
change the view

Feel free to give us your studied, indepth analysis. We know you're an
expert accountant among your other bull****.

I do know how to crunch numbers, it is actually pretty simple to do
this one. Maybe beyond your ability but not that hard.
Maybe when you get to high school you will learn a little elementary
algebra.


Maybe you should try harder to insult me ****head.. you're the ****ing
expert, but you can't even figure out that SS and MC are two
completely different things.

I know they are different brands of the same basic Ponzi but it does
give you a convenient way to see what happens when you remove the
OASDI cap. HI is not capped and OASDI is, taxing the same salary base.
If you interpolate the result of the OASDI rate to the HI rate you get
the delta.

No. You know how to fake being an intellectual, well-read, and a fair
minded person. What you are is a fraud, but I wouldn't call it a Ponzi
fraud.

You can go to tax stats, look at the raw data and do the computations
based on the percentages but you will still end up with about the
same numbers.


Uh huh. Sure. Bascially, you're pulling the numbers out your ass and
smearing it on your **** to make them look better.

So you don't even understand the simplest way to explain this.
You have told us about higher education, implying you have actually
graduated from high school, yet you can't follow math my 9 year old
grand daughter can do and you can't finish a sentence without a
childish profanity.
You have no math skills and horrid language skills.

I guess the world needs hamburger flippers too. Good luck

You can insult me all you want dickbrain. The point is that you're no
expert. You don't have the answers, and anyone who proposes simple
solutions that will have a great effect in the long term are no good,
because they don't solve the entire problem immediately.

**** you. Happy?