cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Samnospam
Advisor

Re: for don

I thought that was strictly out of ss not medicare. Those stimulus things just tend to bite you don't they. If you don't change the underlying fundamentals, when the stimulus runs out you're back where you started. Oh no change that you're not back where you started you're worse off.
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: for don

To be fair, I think the truth lies somewhere in the milddle.

To be fair to Kraft-t, he probably paid into SS, exactly what Uncle Sam told him to, and now he merly expects back, what Uncle Sam promised him.

The problem is Uncle Sam, didn't do his math all that well, and now some changes need to be made, to keep things going for future generations.   Part of it may be that life expectancies rose more than anyone thought, and expenses (espeically medical expenses drawing down Medicare funds) rose more than they thought.


Any way you slice it, the long-term sustainability of the programs is not there.   Some changes, some where, have to be made.   IMO, the sooner some hard choices are made, the smaller the changes will have to be, and the more gradually they can be implemented.
There needs to be less spending, and more revenue coming into the system sooner or later.   I would prefer sooner, but that's just me.   There are others, who want it later, and they have every right to their opinion, but my personal experiences are that those who want no cuts, because we can go maybe 20 years before the bottom falls out, are often those who likely won't be around anymore in 20 years.

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: for don

that is not entirely true, Nebraska, because the amounts being paid in were pretty minute for a long time, and the expansion in Medicare benefits and social security coverage has came long after those amounts were paid in, as a response to a democracy where giving away free stuff wins votes. A reasonable person would see that.

 

And it was the republican GW Bush that helped break the bank, too, with the drug benefit.

 

You are correct when you say that the ones that don't plan on being around in 20 years are the ones that want zero changes.

 

Funny how that works out.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: for don

You have a point on the benefit increases.

 

I think one of the big misconceptions is the idea that 'I paid my money it, so I should ge my money out'.

That is not at all how it is set up, and never was.

 

People pay their money in, and it is spent.

Then, as they begin to collect, they get other people's money.  It has been a super great bargain for people, up to now, who are of the age to draw benefits.   It has never been about putting your own money away, to be able to recieve benefits, it was never set up that way.


So now, the people who paid in, when there were 20 people paying in, to each one recieving benefits, wonder why us youngsters are wanting to buck the trend.   Well, consider that by the time I retire, if there are no reforms, they expect there to be someone drawing benefits, for every person paying in.  Some of the people drawing now, litereally have been paying 1/20th of what will be expected of me before I retire, and they wonder why I'm concerned.

In some ways, I can see their point of view, they put their faith in the government, assumed the government was right, and can't get themselves to believe that the government could have gotten their math wrong.  

However, I am confounded, on how the same people who will say 'tax the rich more', who are themselves 'rich' will have nothing to do with reducing benefits to anyone, no matter how wealthy.   I ask, what's the difference?  

 

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: for don

What it is about is buying an insurance policy In 1963 and paying premiums for that long and having your insurance company renegging on the contract when you need the benefits. I suggest you tell your insurance company that you don't want any benefits because you don't really need them.

 

Or you paid your cash rent and put in all the imputs ansd did the work and the land lord asked you to leave the crop in the field because you really don't need it.

 

What is amazing to me that you folks don't beleive there was ever a contract and you have absolutely no qualms about renegging on the contract. Do you think America should reneg on bond holders or tax payers? Should they fail to send you back your tax refund. Would that be ok with you. Might do alot of good for seniors or the uninsured.

 

The truth is too many people are exempt from Fica taxes. There is more people than ever in our society. There should be thousands more people paying SS and FICA taxes.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: for don


@kraft-t wrote:

What it is about is buying an insurance policy In 1963 and paying premiums for that long and having your insurance company renegging on the contract when you need the benefits. I suggest you tell your insurance company that you don't want any benefits because you don't really need them.

 

Or you paid your cash rent and put in all the imputs ansd did the work and the land lord asked you to leave the crop in the field because you really don't need it.

 

What is amazing to me that you folks don't beleive there was ever a contract and you have absolutely no qualms about renegging on the contract. Do you think America should reneg on bond holders or tax payers? Should they fail to send you back your tax refund. Would that be ok with you. Might do alot of good for seniors or the uninsured.

 

The truth is too many people are exempt from Fica taxes. There is more people than ever in our society. There should be thousands more people paying SS and FICA taxes.


This is not insurance, this is a government funded, tax supporting, ponzi scheme. Like all ponzi scheme, those in first make out like bandits at the expense of those who come in later. The problem with this ponzi scheme is you are forced to participate by the federal government under penalty of law. Your money is gone, you are at the mercy of those now in charge. Even after you see the mess they made of your retirement you still want them to also have total control over your health care.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: for don


@kraft-t wrote:

What it is about is buying an insurance policy In 1963 and paying premiums for that long and having your insurance company renegging on the contract when you need the benefits. I suggest you tell your insurance company that you don't want any benefits because you don't really need them.

 

You are not talking about insurance.   You are talking about something else entirely.  
I bet, if you could go back in time, to when you started paying in, they would have a chart that said you'd live to be (guessing here) about 70 years old when you die, and the benefits were calculated, based upon that.   I know every time I get a letter from the SS administration, they list my annual 'contributions', and their ESTIMATE of my future collections.   Note the work ESTIMATE.   When you are given an estimate, it is not a binding contract.

 

I might also add, what happens to insurance policies, when the company goes bankrupt.

 

Or you paid your cash rent and put in all the imputs ansd did the work and the land lord asked you to leave the crop in the field because you really don't need it.

 

Talk about apples to kumquats.

 

What is amazing to me that you folks don't beleive there was ever a contract and you have absolutely no qualms about renegging on the contract.

 

Ok, I've got a challenge for you.  Show me where this 'contract' exists.   I would like to see a copy of it.  

 

Do you think America should reneg on bond holders or tax payers?

 

Where did I ever say that?  Why is it when someone says 'reform' you automatically think it means renigging on payments?   When have I ever said I want to cut benefits, to anyone recieving SS?

Let me try to put it into language you can understand.

SS has about 20 years left in it, probably less, before it starts losing money pretty quickly, correct?

So, if we phase in reforms, for future recipients, slowly and over time, what would be wrong with that?

What do you have against people like Mitt Romney, drawing less SS than some poor widow somewhere?

 

Should they fail to send you back your tax refund. Would that be ok with you. Might do alot of good for seniors or the uninsured.

 

I thought you supported relief for the poor, and the rich paying 'their fair share'.   So why do you keep wanting to take more from me, so that the Rockefellers can get more benefits? 

 

The truth is too many people are exempt from Fica taxes.

 

Did you not read, where I already said that?

Or are you just agreeing with me?

 

There is more people than ever in our society. There should be thousands more people paying SS and FICA taxes.

 

So, I ask you again.   What difference does it make, if someone like Mitt Romney, would pay more in taxes, or get less benefits (in the grand scheme of things)?

Instead of him getting $3k per month, and being taxed $2K, why not just give him $1K, and save a bunch of paperwork?


 

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: for don

Or another way of putting it, it would be like you were buying a $10,000 annuity and paying for it from payroll deductions, and now you think you are entitled to get a $100,000 annuity even though you never paid for it. Or something tangible, like a car...you paid for a plain jane taurus and now you think the dealer should deliver a brand new Lincoln SUV.

 

I have no problem with people getting what they paid for, assuming there are funds to pay for that. And the truly needy should get more if we , as a nation , can do that for them. Much better than throwing money away around the world in the pax Americana world police action.

 

 

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: for don

Government did not make a mess of my retirement. I was able to earn a living invest in our future, Pay the taxes, ordinary income taxes & fica taxes and build a healthy estate and a good living for our old age.

 

Some people do not have the management skills to do that. Most of them cry about the heavy tax burden as the cause of their financial failure. When in fact they have neither the wisdom or the discipline to make it. Thus they are always looking for something or someone to blame.

 

To many people on these pages have done it. They have worked their lives saved and invested and paid the debt and wound up with something.

 

They have taken over my health care. medicare and the BC/BS supplemental.  Since age 65 and i know of no privarte insurer that is interested in insuring my wife or I or my 97 year old mother. When you reach age 65, you will rejoice that you have that option. If not health care will probably bring about your financial demise.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: for don


@kraft-t wrote:

Government did not make a mess of my retirement. I was able to earn a living invest in our future, Pay the taxes, ordinary income taxes & fica taxes and build a healthy estate and a good living for our old age.

 

Some people do not have the management skills to do that. Most of them cry about the heavy tax burden as the cause of their financial failure. When in fact they have neither the wisdom or the discipline to make it. Thus they are always looking for something or someone to blame.

 

To many people on these pages have done it. They have worked their lives saved and invested and paid the debt and wound up with something.

 

They have taken over my health care. medicare and the BC/BS supplemental.  Since age 65 and i know of no privarte insurer that is interested in insuring my wife or I or my 97 year old mother. When you reach age 65, you will rejoice that you have that option. If not health care will probably bring about your financial demise.


Yes, yes, much better to push the problem into the future and bring about the financial demise of those yet to be born, they don't squawk much.