cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
GoredHusker
Senior Contributor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

Isn't this exactly what the Obama administration is trying to do to the banks that loaned money in good faith on housing contracts?  They're trying to get the banks to reduce principal amounts.  Isn't this in essence not holding up the end of the agreement?  It's because the court system "changed" so many land contracts back in the 80's that very little if any real estate around here is sold on a land contract.   

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

I have no problem with people going out of the country for services and yes I do buy foreign imports.  I'm thinking it is impossible these days not buy foreign imports especially if you choose to wear clothing.

 

 

In my opinion it looks worse when a person that is very outspoken about family values is caught cheating on their spouse then it does for the average Joe.  Same goes with people who are outspoken in their beliefs that gay lifestyles are bad but are found to be closet homosexuals.  Same goes with Rush always complaining out drug addicts when he was found to be abusing prescription drugs.

 

 

Don has been very outspoken about the plight of American workers and is always claiming right leaning

posters here are against labor / workers and blames their politics for the loss of American jobs and causing

U.S. jobs to be shipped out of the country.   Therefore it is worse in my mind for Don to then go out of country for dental work then the average Joe when it is done strictly to save a buck.  Be a different story if Don was going out of country to get heart surgery from one of the worlds leading heart surgeons.  From the way Don told it that is not the case but simply was a way to save him some money at the expense of American workers. 

Don likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk.  According to Don everyone  should willingly pay more in taxes and especially the rich.  But don't you dare cut his farm payments or think about means testing for Social Security.   Heaven forbid we stop giving millions of tax payer dollars to BTO farmers worth millions. 

 

 

Reminds me of Senator Kerry repeatedly voting to raise taxes and claiming we need to make the rich pay

their fair share in taxes and then we learn that mega rich Senator Kerry maintains his expensive new yacht in another state to avoid paying his own state's taxes on yachts for the rich.

 

 

Boston Globe:  

Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

 

 

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

 

 

Now I'm sure Don will make some excuse for Kerry choosing to list Newport, Rhode Island on the stern of his new yacht as its hailing port in order to avoid paying close to a half million dollars in taxes to his home state.  Never mind that Kerry is rich while his wife is mega rich (estimated at over $500 million) and they spend their summers at their beach house in Nantucket, Massachusetts.  In fact the Kerrys own five very expensive homes of which none are located in Rhode Island. 

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

I didn't say it was implemented in 1965.  The link just showed 1965.  I still think 52-1 is very much too high and since you didn't supply a link showing it, I still do.  People who are now 40 and younger have to work until age 67 so it has changed some and to get the absolute full amount, you have to wait until you are 70.

GoredHusker
Senior Contributor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

Well, I finally found the link.  Actually, it's a lot worse than I thought or posted.  Here is the link:  http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

3 to 1 is worse???  You said it was 52-1!

GoredHusker
Senior Contributor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

I said when SS was first implemented that there were 52 paying in for each 1 drawing.  From the chart, it shows there were actually 159.4 paying in for each 1 drawing.  The 3 to 1 is right now.  The problem is full retirement was 65 when SS was first implemented.  Today, full retirement is 66.  It doesn't go to 67 for another 14 years.  The average life expectancy in 1935 was 60 1/2.  Today, it is 78.  In order to save SS, the full retirment age needs to be quite a bit higher than it currently is. 

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

I did misunderstand that.  However, the age of  67 is in effect now and those people can draw in 11 years at age 62 or at age 67 in 16 years or at 70 in 19 years.  

 

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirement/1960.html

GoredHusker
Senior Contributor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

Exactly, they can draw at 62.  The point of this entire exercise was to show why SS is in trouble.  It's quite obvious that it's not being managed as FDR thought it would.  Full age to draw when SS was first implemented was basically five years older than the average lifespan.  For some reason, we've for all intensive purposes locked the full age to draw while life expectancy keeps climbing higher.  This is the reason we went from 40 or so paying into the system for each 1 drawing down to 3 to 1 now.  At the current pace, we'll be down to 2 to 1 within the next 20 years.  In order to feed SS, we need to have a lot more than 2 or 3 people paying into it for each person drawing.  Means testing would accomplish this, but is that fair?  The fairest thing to do is quite simply raise the age to draw to at least 72 and more than likely 75.  If it were me, I'd allow those who wished to draw at 72 with a penalty much like those who wish to draw at 62 and allow those 75 and older to draw without penalty. 

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

But they can't draw the maximum that they would be entitled to if they start at 62.  They would lose about 30% which is quite a lot.  Raising the age to draw that high would mean that most would not get their money back.  As it is now, most do get their investment back but only a few get a lot more.  I was 63 and 5 months when I started drawing but I don't get much.  I could probably have stayed in my job but I wouldn't have been able to meet the time restraints much longer because  of the wear and tear on the body.  I might have been able to find another full time job that was less physical but I doubt it at that age.  Now I just do temp jobs once in awhile.  The average life expectancy is 78 but if you look at the obits, you will see a whole bunch that are less than that.  I don't agree that people should have to work until they get carried out of the job on a stretcher.  You work hard all your life, you should be able to half-way enjoy the last years of your life.  Besides, most of us don't feel like working our butts off for another 10-15 years.  My SS makes up about 13% of my retirement funds so it doesn't mean much but for a lot of people who get a little more, it means a lot.

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Neutralizing the elderly votes to allow entitlement reform

So they are buying votes by continuing the benefits for the older. If government is going to reduce coverage for the age 50 retirees when they reach 65, how are they going to pay for their health care? If the nation cannot afford it for the elderly, How will the small percentage of people that are retired afford it.

 

Health care is not going to get cheaper and health insurance premiums have an historic reference over the last 25 years. Private insurance is getting higher, much higher. A 50% increase in FICA taxes would cost everyone far less than the so called entitlement reform. For a 100% increase we could probably insure everyone young and old alike. Fica taxes at 2.5 % cost most americans far less than $2000 per year. At 5% it would double. Compare that to what you are paying now for private health insurance.

 

Private health insurance costs me much more for the supplement than does the medicare premiums and yet they only pay 20% of the claims. Of course the tax payers pay but why do insurers need so  much to pay for so little?