|
( OT ) AARP suggestions to save Social Security
AARP suggestions to save Social Security
As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from the American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it’s a good deal, if only for the publications. The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE proposals to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations by USA Next that AARP is “the bolder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts” Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million + nationwide grassroots effort”, yet it’s tax return for the year shows income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm) Anyhow the proposals are as follows – no one will work, some combination will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have now. The proposals 1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to 90K/yr – raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall by 32% 2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and matching employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax increase could eliminate 100% of the shortfall 3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits are paid directly to the fund?) 4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only estates valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this rate only about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the projected shortfall by 27% 5) Make SS Universal – About 30% of State and local government workers are not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by 10% 6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less expensive than individual accounts, and the government would be better able to ride out short term market declines. 7) Adjust the COLA – change from the current Consumer Price Index to a newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim – Tailor a retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs) 8) Raise the retirement age to 70 – currently on the way to 67. Still allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the shortfall by about 36% 9) Index benefits to prices, not wages. Note – the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005 edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me your email address, and I’ll scan the article and send it to you. The pros and cons of each proposal are discussed in detail. |
I'm very encouraged by Bush's alarm over social security.
After all, if the President is savvy enough to realize that a government program will begin paying out more dollars in benefits than it receives in income about 30 years from now and to know that represents a problem- surely he will also soon realize that a government *currently* borrowing 2.16 billion dollars every day to balance income and expense is a much greater and even more immediate crisis. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ (Not sure whether expenses for the war in Iraq are included in the 2.16 billion, as that war is being waged "off the books" and expenses are not officially included in the budget). |
All of those "plans" are laughable.
We need to get the money away from the government. "Jim," wrote in message ... AARP suggestions to save Social Security As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from the American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it’s a good deal, if only for the publications. The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE proposals to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations by USA Next that AARP is “the bolder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts” Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million + nationwide grassroots effort”, yet it’s tax return for the year shows income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm) Anyhow the proposals are as follows – no one will work, some combination will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have now. The proposals 1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to 90K/yr – raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall by 32% 2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and matching employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax increase could eliminate 100% of the shortfall 3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits are paid directly to the fund?) 4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only estates valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this rate only about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the projected shortfall by 27% 5) Make SS Universal – About 30% of State and local government workers are not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by 10% 6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less expensive than individual accounts, and the government would be better able to ride out short term market declines. 7) Adjust the COLA – change from the current Consumer Price Index to a newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim – Tailor a retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs) 8) Raise the retirement age to 70 – currently on the way to 67. Still allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the shortfall by about 36% 9) Index benefits to prices, not wages. Note – the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005 edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me your email address, and I’ll scan the article and send it to you. The pros and cons of each proposal are discussed in detail. |
All of those "plans" are laughable.
We need to get the money away from the government *********** Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty. Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net legitimately provided by Social Security. Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process? |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... All of those "plans" are laughable. We need to get the money away from the government. That is always the solution from liebrals.......gimme more of your money. "Jim," wrote in message ... AARP suggestions to save Social Security As you approach your 50th birthday, you will start receiving mail from the American Association of Retired People (AARP). I think it's a good deal, if only for the publications. The latest monthly Bulletin describes 9, nine, count them NINE proposals to save the solvency of social security. This in spite of accusations by USA Next that AARP is "the bolder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts" Interestingly enough USA Next describes itself as a 1.5 million + nationwide grassroots effort", yet it's tax return for the year shows income of 25.3 million; 24.8 million from a single unidentified contributor. (kind of makes me go Hummmmmm) Anyhow the proposals are as follows - no one will work, some combination will be needed to keep SS solvent and closely resembling what we have now. The proposals 1) Raise the cap on earnings. Next year it will be on earnings up to 90K/yr - raise it slowly as average earnings increase. This will affect only about 6% of taxpayers at present, but cut the projected shortfall by 32% 2) Increase the payroll tax rate. Gradually increase workers (and matching employers) taxes from 12.4% to 15% over 70 years. Estimated tax increase could eliminate 100% of the shortfall 3) Raise taxation of Benefits. Higher income beneficiaries would make a greater contribution. (Did you know that income taxes on SS benefits are paid directly to the fund?) 4) Preserve SOME of the estate Tax and dedicate it to SS. Tax only estates valued at 3.5 Million or more (7 Million for a couple). At this rate only about ½ of 1% of estates would be taxed, but would reduce the projected shortfall by 27% 5) Make SS Universal - About 30% of State and local government workers are not covered by SS. Making SS universal would reduce the shortfall by 10% 6) Invest SOME of the trust fund in Indexed funds. Be a lot less expensive than individual accounts, and the government would be better able to ride out short term market declines. 7) Adjust the COLA - change from the current Consumer Price Index to a newer (supposedly more accurate one) developed by the bureau of Labor statistics) This would produce lower COLAs (Suggestion by Jim - Tailor a retired CPI reflecting increased Medical costs) 8) Raise the retirement age to 70 - currently on the way to 67. Still allow retirement at 62 with proportionately reduced benefits. Life expectancy has increased, why not working life? This will reduce the shortfall by about 36% 9) Index benefits to prices, not wages. Note - the above is very much abbreviated and taken from he April 2005 edition of the AARP Bulletin. If anyone is REALLY interested, send me your email address, and I'll scan the article and send it to you. The pros and cons of each proposal are discussed in detail. |
John Herbert wrote: On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote: AARP suggestions to save Social Security OT spam is not wanted nor appreciated. Please restrain yourself. Go post your **** in the appropriate group. This post of yours has nothing to do with boats. Darn right, John. We could get so distracted with this stuff we'd miss one of your on-topic posts. That would certainly be a shame. In fact, I think I did miss it. Would you mind reminding me of the title so I can go back and look for it? |
|
Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed
is that which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could pass the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to? All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take advantage of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government takes for Social Security. ************ The challenge with your perception is that you are looking at Social Security primarily as a pension plan. It is not, and never was intended to be primarily a retirement pension system. The purpose of Social Security is to provide a social safety net for people who cannot take care of themselves. For esample, when my brother in law died last November and left a dependent wife and a 4-year old son behind, the money he and others paid into social security is being used to insure that the 4-year old will have a very basic but secure lifestyle during the 14 years it will take for him to become an adult and legally responsible for his own care. (My sister in law gets 1200 or so a month from SS- just enough to live at about the poverty level- so the family helps out, and she has a mini-wage job to do what little she can- of course). Among the persons identified as less-able under the social security system are those individuals who are too old or sick for gainful employment. When the system was enacted, very few people lived to be 65, but in today's society probably 85-90% of the people who make it to 55 will survive to 65 and beyond. Social Security has become a defacto pension plan, when it should not have. We would probably have to raise the age to 75 in order to once again extend retirement benefits to the same small group of old folks that the system was originally designed to serve. It's downright silly to talk about the "return" on the money impounded for Social Security. What is the rate of financial "return" on our dollars spent for national defense, for the interstate highway system, or for federal law enforcement efforts? None, nada, zip, and who cares? You want to invest for retirement? Great! Everybody should. But those who are in such tight financial straits that they can only free up investment money if 2% of their wages are returned to them via a reduction in SS taxes? Those people have NO BUSINESS in the stock market. None. Anybody cutting it that close can't afford to be exposed to the ever present risk of loss with securities. If it's all spent every month so that there is no money to invest for retirement, a worker would do far better to analyze his family budget and figure out how to free up some serious money rather than moaning that SS has dealt him a cruel blow. |
|
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a discussion. For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it. Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact. ******************* Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance program. Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits. Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z happens you collect benefits. If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are "too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond the scope of social security. Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based" social services and propose taking the money currently funding the social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that, it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners). While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the responsibility for social services away from the government and giving it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and families may be able to better provide than they are social justice- and that *is* the business of government in a democracy. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 12 Apr 2005 20:12:14 -0700, wrote: All of those "plans" are laughable. We need to get the money away from the government *********** Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty. Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net legitimately provided by Social Security. Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process? Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed is that which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could pass the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to? All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take advantage of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government takes for Social Security. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." By John Carlisle In the ongoing debate over Social Security, AARP may claim that its mission is to defend the elderly, but its use of manipulative polls and inaccurate ads to needlessly frighten the public about the merits of reform raises serious questions about its tactics. Moreover, while AARP says private stocks are too risky for individuals to invest their retirement savings, the multibillion organization has no problem making millions off those same "risky" investments. As evidence for the alleged unpopularity of private accounts backed by President Bush, AARP cites a poll it conducted in March that showed that 59 percent of the organization's 35 million members oppose the proposal. However, the poll is suspect because it was framed in such a way as to maximize a negative response. For example, 29 percent of AARP members initially said they liked the idea of diverting up to $1,300 into private accounts. These respondents were then asked a series of loaded questions, such as "What if you heard that creating private accounts out of Social Security funds will put more of your retirement savings at risk?" This was followed up with language such as private accounts "will create winners and losers" and "could mean cuts in everyone's Social Security benefits." Not surprisingly, most of the respondents who supported private accounts changed their minds. AARP plays other games with polls to get the answers it wants. One poll reported that the general public is opposed to private accounts by a margin of 48 percent to 43 percent. However, the poll was skewed to maximize the representation of demographic groups that tend to oppose the plan. To begin with, the survey did not even sample people under 30 who comprise the most pro-reform group. On the other hand, people over 60, the most skeptical of private accounts, constituted 34 percent of the survey, even though they made up just 24 percent of voters in the 2004 election. Likewise, the poll sampled 37 percent Democrats and 31 percent Republicans. In 2004, Republicans and Democrats each constituted 37 percent of the electorate. ...................................... http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050...3809-2917r.htm |
|
|
Why is the government providing insurance?
We have private companies that will ensure your risk for much cheaper than the government. wrote in message ups.com... As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a discussion. For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it. Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact. ******************* Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance program. Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits. Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z happens you collect benefits. If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are "too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond the scope of social security. Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based" social services and propose taking the money currently funding the social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that, it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners). While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the responsibility for social services away from the government and giving it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and families may be able to better provide than they are social justice- and that *is* the business of government in a democracy. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... The very concept of right-wing religious organizations replacing societal responsibility for our brothers and sisters is repugnant as soon as anyone is forced to listen to a religious spiel. The government is not society regardless of how much you want it to be. The religious organizations are more in tune with society and are therefore a better option to providing help at the community level. It's the same reason why I fought so hard to get my polling place in Florida removed from a damned fundie church to a public facility, such as a school or a firehouse and actually went to the expense of having my lawyer there write up and file a civil complaint. Mostlikely a unionized firehouse! |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, "P.Fritz" wrote:
OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
wrote in message ups.com... As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a discussion. For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it. Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact. ******************* Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance program. Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits. Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z happens you collect benefits. If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are "too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond the scope of social security. Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based" social services and propose taking the money currently funding the social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that, it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners). While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the responsibility for social services away from the government and giving it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and families may be able to better provide than they are social justice- and that *is* the business of government in a democracy. You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators, etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark. And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market. Where is the money we paid last year in excess to SS benefits, taxes invested? |
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John H wrote: OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still fill compelled to post OT, seek professional help. Take your own advice. |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, "Jim," wrote:
OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a discussion. For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it. Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact. ******************* Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance program. Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits. Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z happens you collect benefits. If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are "too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond the scope of social security. Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based" social services and propose taking the money currently funding the social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that, it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners). While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the responsibility for social services away from the government and giving it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and families may be able to better provide than they are social justice- and that *is* the business of government in a democracy. You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators, etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark. And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market. Where is the money we paid last year in excess to SS benefits, taxes invested? Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. To much hash to know how to spell? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. To much hash to know how to spell? Nope, I am certified drug free. I have a card to prove it. Do you? I doubt it since you persist in off topic posting. You're either a druggo or an asshole. Take your pick. I'll refer to you as either one of your choices. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. To much hash to know how to spell? BTW asshole, that would be "too" much hash. Don't know how to spell either do you asshole or druggo? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: "I hate OT posts" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. To much hash to know how to spell? BTW asshole, that would be "too" much hash. Don't know how to spell either do you asshole or druggo? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. "To" was correctly spelled. Just used the wrong version. Now you are just a certified drugfree, poor spelling asshole. |
"Bill Mckee the spammer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a discussion. For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it. Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact. ******************* Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance program. Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits. Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z happens you collect benefits. If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are "too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond the scope of social security. Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based" social services and propose taking the money currently funding the social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that, it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners). While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the responsibility for social services away from the government and giving it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and families may be able to better provide than they are social justice- and that *is* the business of government in a democracy. You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators, etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark. And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market. Where is the money we paid last year in excess to SS benefits, taxes invested? Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. I see you do not know what spam is, and also believe in stealing names. Damn asshole thief! |
I think I know who this is.
Uses "spammer" as an insult. Uses the word "snipped". Has an anger management problem and a serious need to feel important. And, although a frequent OT poster, none of the individual's own posts have been slammed by the "anonymous remailer". Figures. |
"I hate OT posts" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: "I hate OT posts" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Take your own advice. No, ****off nitwitt. To much hash to know how to spell? Nope, I am certified drug free. I have a card to prove it. Do you? Why do you need a card to say your are certified drug free? I doubt it since you persist in off topic posting. You're either a druggo or an asshole. Take your pick. I'll refer to you as either one of your choices. Me thinks that you behavior is a little suspect and you should lift your nose off of the mirror and stay away from the bars. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On 15 Apr 2005, wrote:
I think I know who this is. Uses "spammer" as an insult. Uses the word "snipped". Has an anger management problem and a serious need to feel important. And, although a frequent OT poster, none of the individual's own posts have been slammed by the "anonymous remailer". Figures. Ever think about cleaning up your act? Naw, too self important, right? You can do as you please. You can spam all you want to. Well, here is a message from me: GET ****ED!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, HarryKrause wrote:
wrote: I think I know who this is. Uses "spammer" as an insult. Uses the word "snipped". Has an anger management problem and a serious need to feel important. And, although a frequent OT poster, none of the individual's own posts have been slammed by the "anonymous remailer". Figures. One of the Hertvik boyz? None of the above. Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
Some of us pay for boating with Social Security funds. Others would like ot
have SS money to boat with when they get older. So is a boating related post. Bill "Siegfried Kemper" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: OT post snipped! Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here. Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is unappreciated. If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help. |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:36:35 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote: Some of us pay for boating with Social Security funds. Others would like ot have SS money to boat with when they get older. So is a boating related post. Bill Starting next year, my SS check is going to buy *all* my gas and bait! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
Pardon me if I see some of the DSK techniques showing up here. What, showing you & NOBBY up for the brainless propaganda parrots that you are? DSK |
Bill McKee wrote:
You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. Where? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Bill McKee wrote: You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. Where? DSK Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around $13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and have investment money left over for less than this. |
Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Bill McKee wrote: You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less money than SS takes out. Where? DSK Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around $13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and have investment money left over for less than this. And to cover your spouse and minor children? Don't forget retirement also. |
"aa" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote: Some of us pay for boating with Social Security funds. Others would like ot have SS money to boat with when they get older. So is a boating related post. Bill A very unique twist to trying to make the original post fit into boating. The argument just lacks merit. OT is OT no matter how you try to wriggle it! True, your arguments lack merit. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com