cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: That Mitt really does beleive in means testing


@kraft-t wrote:

Do you know any company that will insure me for $2 k per month?

 

You folks don't get it. Private insurers don't want to sell health insurance to old codgers. You either better support medicare or save your money. You haven't a clue as to how bad it can get.


I choose to save my money......oh yeah.....not an option. Libs only believe in choice when it ends life.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

If you can't get by w/o ss sell a farm.
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Kraft-t, you did not 'pay for' your benefits.  You paid into a system, in which the current beneficiaries, recieve their benefits, from the taxes the people currently paying into contribute.


In reality, when you were my age, and paying in, you probably had 6 to 8 other people, helping you pay the benefits, to one retiree.  Now, when you  are drawing, there are only 3 or 4 people paying in, for your retirement. 
By the time I retire, there will be less than 3 people paying in, per retireee.  In reality, you are reaping double (or even triple) the benefits, for what you paid in, than someone my age ever will, unless reforms are made.

 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

How do you figure that there are only 3-4 now?  Are you saying that because of unemployment being high--2-3% over normal--that that means the funds are being used up too fast?  I don't buy it.  Put up some graphs or something to prove your point.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

You are right, there are not 3 or 4 people paying per current recipeint.  There are only two.

According to the US labor department, there are just under 2 full-time workers paying into Social Security, per recipient recieving them.  I think, that when you add the government workers, is when you get the stat of  the 3 to 4 workers paying in.  If you read the whole article, it comments about 'covered workers', which I think, is any worker who has paid into SS.  I will post a couple snippets below.

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/labor-dept-data-only-175-full-time-private-sector-workers-social-sec...

 

(CNSNews.com) - There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.

That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.

 

-snip-

 

The board of trustees also reported that there were 156.725 million “covered workers” in the United States who paid some Social Security taxes during 2010. But these 156.725 million “covered workers” included all workers—including government workers—who were “paid at some time during the year for employment” on which Social Security taxes were due. People who worked full-time for 52 weeks during the year were included with people who worked only part-time for a month.

The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010.

That meant, as the Social Security board of trustees reported, that there were just 2.9 “covered workers” who paid some Social Security taxes in 2010 for each individual who received Social Security benefits.  (According to the Social Security board of trustees, there were 41.9 "covered workers" per Social Security beneficiary in 1945.)

 

 

Do you see the point I am trying to make?   In 1945, decades before I was even born (I don't know when you all were born, or started paying into SS, so I'll just let you try to make your best estimate) the taxes were 1/41 of the benefits recieved.  Those paying in, who lived to collect, had a real bargain.  Now, the payments are about 1/3 of the benefits recieved, and the trend is going that direction more every day as the baby boomers age.   While a great deal for those at the top of the pyramid right now, there needs to be some sort of reform, as this trend is not sustainable.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Here is another site, with charts, if you are more visual:

 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p37.html

 

 

Table 1. U.S. population, by age, selected years 1950–2080
YearPopulation (thousands)Percentage 65 or older
All agesUnder 2020–6465 or older
  Historical
1950 160,118 54,466 92,841 12,811 8
1970 214,765 80,684 113,158 20,923 10
1990 260,458 75,060 153,368 32,029 12
2005 302,323 83,963 181,457 36,902 12
  Projected a
2020 339,269 87,547 198,213 53,510 16
2040 376,856 92,268 207,416 77,172 20
2060 402,079 96,760 218,777 86,543 22
2080 428,214 101,159 230,137 96,918 23
SOURCE: Board of Trustees (2006, Table V.A2) and authors' calculations.
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Since 1982, there are very FEW govt workers who do not pay into SS.  All new hires in the last 30 years pay into that system.  There are still a few old timers still working under Civil Service but not many.  Do you believe that the tax money collected is just put into a zero interest can and buried behind the White House and given out each month?  Not saying that things don't need to be tweaked but doing away with it doesn't make sense.  Means testing makes sense if you make it so that people making  say $250K/yr don't draw anything  IF you give them back what they have paid into it and call it good.  People who paid into it deserve to get that money back if they aren't going to get the benefits of SS.  If they wish to have Medicare, then they should pay the premium for it.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: so do many democrats

Here's one for you.

 

 

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

 Executive Branch civiliansTotal U.S. populationExecutive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

Highlighted
Advisor

it's not a system, its a tax

as such the government is under no legal obligation to pay anyone anything.
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: it's not a system, its a tax

Where did you study law?