djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 18:39:52 GMT -5
your team has been saying the same thing about social security for over 70 years. Yep. And we're absolutely correct. um, no. you were absolutely wrong. it was not repealed. it did not collapse under it's own weight. and, 70 years later, it is still here. SS is insolvent, and were it not for the national credit card and its trillions in debt, it would be gone already. the argument was not about solvency, it was about permanence. but you are also wrong about the borrowing. the Federal Government, to date, has borrowed FROM SS- not the opposite. it is difficult to say what the future holds, but i would posit that if we CHOOSE to not fully fund SS, it will simply pay less than promised. i think that would be sad for many, but it won't bother me, PERSONALLY, in the slightest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 18:41:27 GMT -5
who is running that paper, now that Moon has died? one of his 50 or so children?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 15, 2014 19:07:14 GMT -5
SS isn't paid on the 'credit card' and is not insolvent. Down the road it could technically be considered that if no modifications are made- yet even then it will just be limited in it what benefits it can pay- and a lot of this is population demographics that require changes- not to mention that people are living longer. Real easy fix- unless you are congress.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 19:49:18 GMT -5
Might it be half the people were more in need of actual emergency care than the other half? No doubt. I would guess perhaps 10% were there for actual emergencies. The others are using the loophole in the law the forces ERs to treat people who do not have insurance or the means to pay. That loophole pre-dates Obamacare by a couple of decades.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 19:52:33 GMT -5
No doubt. I would guess perhaps 10% were there for actual emergencies. The others are using the loophole in the law the forces ERs to treat people who do not have insurance or the means to pay. That loophole pre-dates Obamacare by a couple of decades. Once upon a time, I'd have been all but now I'm just like .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 19:59:42 GMT -5
Simple fix for Social Security. Only four things are required:
1: Remove the tax cap on SS taxes. 2: Include ALL forms of income as SS Taxable (dividends, interest, stock-in-lieu-of-money, "Options", et cetera). 3: Increase SS taxes by 1% (of gross income... not increase by 1% of the current tax rate). 4: Cap payouts to 1.5 TIMES the federal poverty (adjusted annually, January 1).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 20:01:08 GMT -5
That loophole pre-dates Obamacare by a couple of decades. Once upon a time, I'd have been all but now I'm just like . Well... technically it's not a LEGAL loophole, it's a "payment is required before services are rendered" loophole.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 20:08:23 GMT -5
SS isn't paid on the 'credit card' and is not insolvent. Down the road it could technically be considered that if no modifications are made- yet even then it will just be limited in it what benefits it can pay- and a lot of this is population demographics that require changes- not to mention that people are living longer. Real easy fix- unless you are congress. OK, I guess I'll educate you: Posted 6 hours ago, cites CBO: news.investors.com/politics/071514-708810-social-security-depleted-by-2030-cbo-says.htmNow, you might think by reading this article that SS will go bust in 16 years- by 2030. In reality, it's a Ponzi scheme- it's broke NOW, because it started out broke, and has always been broke. There's no "trust fund" - that is, there's no money, period, set aside anywhere for Social Security. There never has been, and there never will be. Current recipients are paid from current tax payments, and future tax payments through borrowing. This statement is 100% accurate, it's totally true, and is irrefutable. As Social Security could not be sustained without tax dollars coming in, and money being borrowed to pay it-- it is by definition, insolvent. If you prefer, the more accurate term is non-existent. It doesn't actually exist. Never did. Under the current beg, borrow, and steal accounting method, 16 years from now- IF the government can keep borrowing, and IF tax revenues do not fall, and IF interest rates don't rise...that's a helluva lotta "ifs"...Social Security is toast. Of course, it's been toast since inception-- just like ObamaCare. The key difference being of course that back then the government hadn't been so close to exhausting all the fiscal shenanigans it had to make it fly. New programs when the national debt is in the billions is quite a different scenario than sustaining that program when there are trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see, and a weakening economic outlook. Oh, and look at that- OBAMACARE MADE IT WORSE: Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com/politics/071514-708810-social-security-depleted-by-2030-cbo-says.htm#ixzz37aa8CMti Follow us: @ibdinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 20:14:00 GMT -5
Simple fix for Social Security. Only four things are required: 1: Remove the tax cap on SS taxes. 2: Include ALL forms of income as SS Taxable (dividends, interest, stock-in-lieu-of-money, "Options", et cetera). 3: Increase SS taxes by 1% (of gross income... not increase by 1% of the current tax rate). 4: Cap payouts to 1.5 TIMES the federal poverty (adjusted annually, January 1). 1. Raise taxes 2. Raise taxes 3. Raise taxes 4. Cut benefits / means test Good luck with that. And even after inflicting all that pain on an already struggling economy laboring under the burden of massive new regulations, and the increased costs that come with ObamaCare-- you're leaving out the bursting student loan bubble (Sallie Mae debacle just ahead), the full correction of the housing market-- still yet to come from decades of government meddling and futile multi-trillion dollar hopeless attempts to re-inflate, and who can forget the state budget disasters yet to come from the unfunded pension liability of state and local government workers. I doubt people are going to have an appetite to save some Ponzi scheme for the Baby Boomer brats who got us into this mess. And that doesn't even address the fact that the debt is mathematically impossible to pay-- that is, it will NEVER be repaid. So, will our creditors (who have now downgraded us twice) keep lending us money at zero interest? Doubtful. The United States is finished financially on this current course- and time is running out to get on a new one.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 15, 2014 20:30:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I don't agree with means testing at all. Lots of social security taxes were stolen from my paychecks every time. The fact that I worked and saved and invested wisely to enjoy my retirement as opposed to squandering every dime should not preclude me from taking what is due to me and what was promised just because politicians added a bunch of stuff to steal from the fund.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 15, 2014 20:41:44 GMT -5
Technically you weren't really promised anything. Read your benefit statement closely. Down on the bottom somewhere it has some language about assuming current tax schedules and whatnot this is what your estimated payment will be. A promise with an asterisk and legal mumbo jumbo isn't really a promise the way most people think of the definition of that word.
I do agree with you that means testing SS will be a pretty tough sell to the American public. At some point we have to stop rewarding stupid behavior. The boomers and their parents spent their entire adult lives working in the single richest country in the history of the world during that countries single longest boom, and investing during the longest sustained bull market in recorded history. If they're broke at retirement it's because they fucked up pretty good somewhere along the way, and I don't personally relish the idea of paying more taxes to help remedy the situation.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 15, 2014 20:42:56 GMT -5
True about not being promised anything. Return what you stole from me and we will call it good.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 15, 2014 21:27:11 GMT -5
Simple fix for Social Security. Only four things are required: 1: Remove the tax cap on SS taxes. 2: Include ALL forms of income as SS Taxable (dividends, interest, stock-in-lieu-of-money, "Options", et cetera). 3: Increase SS taxes by 1% (of gross income... not increase by 1% of the current tax rate). 4: Cap payouts to 1.5 TIMES the federal poverty (adjusted annually, January 1). That seems fair enough. And it should be means tested- the way I see it you are paying into a system that ensures you retire with a little dignity- whether you need it or not. Contrary to popular bullshit SS is not an investment, and has an insurance component that is ignored during discussions of the system. And- this insurance component is essential. I worked for SSA and I talked to the people that need it. I also talked to the majority of people that did not. And rich man, poor man today means dick- unless you are a multi-millionaire- you might wind up reliant on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 23:00:02 GMT -5
Simple fix for Social Security. Only four things are required: 1: Remove the tax cap on SS taxes. 2: Include ALL forms of income as SS Taxable (dividends, interest, stock-in-lieu-of-money, "Options", et cetera). 3: Increase SS taxes by 1% (of gross income... not increase by 1% of the current tax rate). 4: Cap payouts to 1.5 TIMES the federal poverty (adjusted annually, January 1). 1. Raise taxes 2. Raise taxes 3. Raise taxes 4. Cut benefits / means test Good luck with that. And even after inflicting all that pain on an already struggling economy laboring under the burden of massive new regulations, and the increased costs that come with ObamaCare-- you're leaving out the bursting student loan bubble (Sallie Mae debacle just ahead), the full correction of the housing market-- still yet to come from decades of government meddling and futile multi-trillion dollar hopeless attempts to re-inflate, and who can forget the state budget disasters yet to come from the unfunded pension liability of state and local government workers. I doubt people are going to have an appetite to save some Ponzi scheme for the Baby Boomer brats who got us into this mess. And that doesn't even address the fact that the debt is mathematically impossible to pay-- that is, it will NEVER be repaid. So, will our creditors (who have now downgraded us twice) keep lending us money at zero interest? Doubtful. The United States is finished financially on this current course- and time is running out to get on a new one. I never said it would make people happy. I said it would fix the system. #1 Shouldn't have ever been in the original law anyway. SS is the ONLY tax that has a cap on it. Heck, payroll taxes are indexed to increase incrementally as income increases (up to a point, then they are fixed at that highest rate). Obamacare has nothing to do with SS... not sure why you even brought that up. Obamacare will eventually go away, the only question is: "how much damage will it do before it departs?" #2 Is reasonable and fair. Why shouldn't all income be taxed? If any is taxed, tax it all. Heck, "Income Tax" should be on all income too. #3 Yes. Raise Taxes. one whole PENNY per dollar. #4 There's no "means" test. And, unlike some believe, Social Security was never meant to support people's every whim and desire, three trips a year around the world... it was meant as a "minimal security for a reasonable standard of life, after a person is too old to work". 1.5x poverty level accomplishes that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 23:48:43 GMT -5
Technically you weren't really promised anything. Read your benefit statement closely. Down on the bottom somewhere it has some language about assuming current tax schedules and whatnot this is what your estimated payment will be. A promise with an asterisk and legal mumbo jumbo isn't really a promise the way most people think of the definition of that word. precisely. this is why all of the talk about future deficits in SS is just that- talk. there are no future deficits, because it is required to pay out NO MORE than it brings in. it is BY FAR the most solvent part of the federal government.I do agree with you that means testing SS will be a pretty tough sell to the American public. At some point we have to stop rewarding stupid behavior. The boomers and their parents spent their entire adult lives working in the single richest country in the history of the world during that countries single longest boom, and investing during the longest sustained bull market in recorded history. If they're broke at retirement it's because they fucked up pretty good somewhere along the way, and I don't personally relish the idea of paying more taxes to help remedy the situation. means testing SS makes it welfare. that is how welfare works. if it is NOT means tested, then it stays a pension system. no, i am for what Richard said, delete the means testing, and index it to life expectancy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 23:50:28 GMT -5
True about not being promised anything. Return what you stole from me and we will call it good. i give more than i take, and i have no problem with that. you can have some of mine.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 16, 2014 1:49:48 GMT -5
I applied yesterday to start the SS checks when I hit 62 next month. Greens fees...with some of the greens in Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Hawaii.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 16, 2014 9:46:30 GMT -5
Technically you weren't really promised anything. Read your benefit statement closely. Down on the bottom somewhere it has some language about assuming current tax schedules and whatnot this is what your estimated payment will be. A promise with an asterisk and legal mumbo jumbo isn't really a promise the way most people think of the definition of that word. precisely. this is why all of the talk about future deficits in SS is just that- talk. there are no future deficits, because it is required to pay out NO MORE than it brings in. it is BY FAR the most solvent part of the federal government.I do agree with you that means testing SS will be a pretty tough sell to the American public. At some point we have to stop rewarding stupid behavior. The boomers and their parents spent their entire adult lives working in the single richest country in the history of the world during that countries single longest boom, and investing during the longest sustained bull market in recorded history. If they're broke at retirement it's because they fucked up pretty good somewhere along the way, and I don't personally relish the idea of paying more taxes to help remedy the situation. means testing SS makes it welfare. that is how welfare works. if it is NOT means tested, then it stays a pension system. no, i am for what Richard said, delete the means testing, and index it to life expectancy. It was never legally a pension. It was always legally meant to be a tax to pay for old age and disability insurance. Just like any other insurance if you don't have that qualifing event you get to pay for years but never collect. Just like I get to pay for lots of things with my taxes that I really don't want. It has been treated like a pension but that doesn't mean it actually is. The biggest problem it has is going forward the "three legged stool" is down two legs and SS is trying to make up for that missing leg of the stool. That really isn't fiscally possible. The older WWII era people really didn't save as much as everyone thinks they just had homes that raised in value and never came down and had very generous pensions. How many here would gladly give up their SS to have the pension of someone who worked for a GM back in the 60's and a home that had tripled in value over the yeas instead of dropping like a stone in recent years only to crawl back toward what they paid for it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2014 10:17:32 GMT -5
means testing SS makes it welfare. that is how welfare works. if it is NOT means tested, then it stays a pension system. no, i am for what Richard said, delete the means testing, and index it to life expectancy. It was never legally a pension. It was always legally meant to be a tax to pay for old age and disability insurance. J sorry, i call that a pension, as in "pensioner insurance". i confess that i don't really know the term tho, as i have only had a pension available to me TWO YEARS of my working life, and was never vested.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 16, 2014 12:31:39 GMT -5
Old age insurance, pension, sounds like splitting hairs to me. They both take a relatively small amount from your paycheck throughout your entire working life and give you a set amount for the rest of your life when you reach a qualifying age.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2014 18:45:21 GMT -5
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jul 24, 2014 21:06:11 GMT -5
ObamaCare getaway: 5 US territories released from health care lawThe Obama administration is coming under fire for once again making a unilateral change to ObamaCare -- this time, quietly exempting the five U.S. territories and their more than 4 million residents from virtually all major provisions of the health care law.
The decision was made a week ago, and was a long time coming. For months, the territories have been complaining that the law was implemented so poorly in their regions that it destabilized their insurance markets.
Until now, the Department of Health and Human Services claimed its hands were tied. But last Wednesday, the department reversed course.
The about-face has some questioning the department's authority to suddenly grant 4.1 million Americans an out from ObamaCare. It follows a cascade of prior unilateral actions delaying and nixing parts of the law for certain groups -- actions which in part prompted House Republicans to launch a lawsuit against President Obama challenging his use of executive power.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/obamacare-free-getaway-for-5-us-territories/?intcmp=trending
The decision covers residents in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 24, 2014 21:18:14 GMT -5
ObamaCare getaway: 5 US territories released from health care lawThe Obama administration is coming under fire for once again making a unilateral change to ObamaCare -- this time, quietly exempting the five U.S. territories and their more than 4 million residents from virtually all major provisions of the health care law.
The decision was made a week ago, and was a long time coming. For months, the territories have been complaining that the law was implemented so poorly in their regions that it destabilized their insurance markets.
Until now, the Department of Health and Human Services claimed its hands were tied. But last Wednesday, the department reversed course.
The about-face has some questioning the department's authority to suddenly grant 4.1 million Americans an out from ObamaCare. It follows a cascade of prior unilateral actions delaying and nixing parts of the law for certain groups -- actions which in part prompted House Republicans to launch a lawsuit against President Obama challenging his use of executive power.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/obamacare-free-getaway-for-5-us-territories/?intcmp=trending
The decision covers residents in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. What do Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands all have in common? None of them are states and cannot vote in Federal elections.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 21:55:49 GMT -5
The Obamacare house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it's not a long, drawn out collapse that takes years.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2014 7:42:18 GMT -5
The biggest threat from Obamacare is that people will come to depend on yet another federal system that will promise much with great intention but ultimately turn into another inefficient government operated program that will bleed billions from the very people it claims to help. It will become increasingly clear in the coming years, despite the continued support from the people who benefited during the early years that our Social Security program is just another example of how good intentions of people and by our federal government will turn into what could be the most devestating and costly hit to the segment of our population who can afford it the least. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/10/the-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2014 8:57:27 GMT -5
The Obamacare house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it's not a long, drawn out collapse that takes years. yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2014 11:46:37 GMT -5
The Obamacare house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it's not a long, drawn out collapse that takes years. yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. Sometimes yeah, and sometimes no. Better just to control government while it is still possible.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2014 14:19:10 GMT -5
yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. Sometimes yeah, and sometimes no. Better just to control government while it is still possible. what seems out of control to you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 19:17:00 GMT -5
The Obamacare house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it's not a long, drawn out collapse that takes years. yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. Who said anything about the collapse of the government? Way to invalidate your own position. I specifically said the " OBAMACARE" house of cards... Not "The US Government house of cards" nor "The Obama Administration house of cards"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2014 20:17:21 GMT -5
yeah, because everyone knows that the collapse of government is the best thing for a country. Who said anything about the collapse of the government? Way to invalidate your own position. that is how i interpreted your remark.I specifically said the " OBAMACARE" house of cards... Not "The US Government house of cards" nor "The Obama Administration house of cards" yeah, you did. my apologies. i misread it.
|
|