quote:Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.
Social Security 15.3% Medicare 5.2%
This doesn't include income tax.
Actually, this is an over simplification. A self employed person pays 15.3% self employment tax (12.4% SS and 2.9% medicare). But that is 15.3% of 92.65% of net earnings from self employment not form 100% of gross earning. A person who is not self employed pays 7.65% of gross (before tax) income and their employer pays and additional 7.65%. It comes out exactly the same.
Precisely my point. If you want to use employer contribution to health care as a cost of health care to the employee then you must accept employer contribution to taxes as a tax on the employee. Also, I agree it's in "before tax" dollars due to the fact it is a tax.
Think about this, 80+ % of your medical premiums are willingly paid for by the employer. Wow, free market at work and the government didn't have to force them to pay it like SS or Med.
You are also neglecting to mention that the most needy in our society already have government health care. SCHIP covers children and Medicare/Medicaid covers the elderly. If you are an able bodied working adult, you're on your own. Buy your own health care, census data shows, it's cheap. Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
80% of some of the population's medical premiums, generally a more healthy proportion of the population than the uninsured, yet for some reason they're less healthy, less satisfied, and there's greater cost than in countries where there's universal healthcare (particularly when that's done with single-payer health insurance).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So >20% of one's income is directed to the federal social programs we already have in place, and they are miserable failures, "unsustainable" according to the social security administration.
Once again, when you are loosing one argument, you switch to another. Its really rather grating.
Its odd to describe social security as a miserable failure. Social Security has been incredibly effective at lifting the elderly out of poverty. Prior to SS, 50% of the elderly lived below the poverty line now that number is less than 12%. Recent studies have found that without SS income, 50% of the population would still be living below the poverty line. I call that a successful program. Its not with out problems and we should always be looking for ways to do it more efficiently, but it is undeniably very successful.
According to the SS administration, even with no changes whatsoever, Social Security will be solvent through 2041. I know of no other pension fund (private or public) that can make the same claim. Remember, SS is indexed to inflation and guarantees certain payments, how many pension plans will do that?
The problems with Social Security don't lie in the Social Security program per se. All developed countries are facing similar problems. These problem are the result of changing demographics not a particular program. People are living longer and having fewer children and that means that in the future an increasingly small fraction of the population will be workers. It doesn't matter how you design a pension plan. Retirees don't simply need money, they need goods and services and someone will have to work to provide those goods and services. No matter how you dress it up, having a smaller fraction of the population of working age means those workers will have to produce more goods and services to meet the needs of everyone. There really is no way to fix this problem without either raising the retirement age, increasing the birth rate or promoting immigration from areas of the world where the birth rates are still high.
Or if you prefer looking at it from a different angle. If the average worker, works for 40 years and is then retired for 10 years, the worker will have to produce and save 20% more than he consumes every year that he/she works in order to be able to consume at the same rate after he/she retires. If the worker spends 40 years working and 20 year retired, he/she she will have to produce 33% more than he consumes while he/she is working to cover his/her retirement.
Peoples expectations on this are rather unrealistic. Do people really think its sensible to expect that they can enter the work force at a higher age than their grandparents did, retire at the same age their grandparents did, and then live 10 years longer than their grandparents did and have it balance out?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.
Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are an able bodied working adult, you're on your own. Buy your own health care, census data shows, it's cheap. Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
No my own health care census data shows the real cost of the average employee sponsored health care plan is around $13,000 per year for a family. Furthemore, 29% of able bodied working adults do not have access to what you call "cheap" health care. For that 29% of the able bodied working population the average insurance premium for a family (which in this case is a low estimate since private individuals pay more for insurance than companies) is over $12,500 dollars per year. That is more than 25% of the US median income For a family that is earning $25,000 a year (which puts them above the poverty level and so unable to get medicaid) that is half their income. Even if that $25,000 year family is lucky enough to have health care from an employer, it will on the average cost them $3,600/year, or 14.4% of their gross income. That's a pretty sizable chunk for a family scraping by at near the poverty level. The cost of health insurance in the US is also twice what full coverage health insurance would cost in any other developed country. My data explicitly disproves your claims that of cheap health care.
quote:Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time. It would've cut into my beer money.
I thought you were in the military when you were a single young man. Last time I heard, the military still provided health coverage for its employees. You are undermining your own credibility with contradictory claims.
BTW, People like you (who go without insurance) are one of the reasons health care in the US is more expensive and less effectual than in countries that mandate full coverage. People without health insurance tend to avoid routine medical treatment. That means that treatable conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, many cancers even strep infections aren't detected early. That leads to much higher costs over a persons lifetime. Young guys go with out health care in their twenties and then dump the expense of the damage they've done to their bodies on the rest of society when they finally get health insurance or retire and become eligible for medicare. And that does not even include the young guys who have a major accident or illness when they are uninsured, declare bankruptcy and dump the costs on all the paying customers. This is one of the reasons universal coverage is so important. Going uninsured doesn't just affect you. I get to pay for it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how I was losing the argument. I used government data to illustrate how cost effective insurance is for the worker. Further I illustrated your logical inconsistencies. If you want to consider the employers contribution as a cost for the employee then you need to be consistent.
Social security certainly helps the elderly. That $1200 per month check is lifting them out of poverty, right? The elderly deserve that and more, they paid into that program their entire lives but the return on their investment is nothing, a net loss of investment money. No wise person would invest 15% of their income for that return. A return that only comes at a given age, if you die you lose it all and if you live you may be able to collect a small fraction of what you've put into it before you die.
The problem with social security is the government spent the money on other things. I would gladly replace my social security contribution with a simple secure savings account. I would end up with more, be able to leave it to my family and not have to fight for it if I became disabled prior to the govt determined age. What about people that die prior? Blacks, die younger, maybe they should be able to collect earlier, it's only fair.
The worker shouldn't have to produce 20% more. The government is taking >20% for these programs and what is the return? A 20% income contribution for 40 years would return more than 100% income assurance for 10 years after retirement. Thanks for the numbers. If you looked at social security as an investment for your own retirement, you would walk away. If a private investment firm sold that pyramid scheme, the government would throw them in prison. In no way did you win and I didn't move the mark. That is your game. We have SCHIP for kids and Medicair for elderly. I challenged your agenda driven statistics with US Census data and your reply is that I'm moving the mark.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.
Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already. They are advertising foodstamps on the radio where I live. If you are truly destitute, the government will feed, house and insure your kids already. Actually, the cut off for SCHIP is $80k. Maybe I should cancel my kids private health care and jump on the government tit.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Speaking of unhealthy behaviors contributing to healthcare costs. You like to point out American health care being more expensive but ignore the fact that we are the fattest, laziest bunch of people on the face of the earth. The obesity rate is staggering and increasing (a sign of a destitute country to be fat).
gov stats for you. Would you like to deny the obesity epidemic has no significant contribution to health care costs in this country?
Strangly, the poor have higher rates of obesity. What a country, our poor are fat while the rest of the world's are starving. I have a great idea, we can cut back on food stamps which will result in a reduction in costs for food stamps and health care. (sarcasm)
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And despite all those programs, there are still 48 million Americans who have no insurance whatsoever. 75% of those uninsured people have full time jobs.
Despite all those programs, the US still has the worst health care outcomes of any developed country. Despite all those programs, Americans are more likely to be dissatisfied with their medical care than residents of any other developed country. Despite all those programs, health care in the US cost 2.5 times what it costs in the average OECD country. Yes the US has lots of health care programs, both public and private. But overall it is simply not working. We are paying more for less.
The only way to find that the US health care system is just fine the way it is, is if you actually like paying more for less. Otherwise, every other health care model in the developed world is better.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)
Which part of the fact that majority of uninsured people do not have access to and employers sponsored health care plan are you still missing. I've told you this again and again and it still act like you've never heard it before.
For the overwhelming majority of the uninsured you have to consider the total cost because the employee pays the full cost not just the 19%. For a single individual, that comes to an average cost of $428/month, which is still a huge cost for a family that is only earning a $25,000/year. And that is presuming that they can even get health insurance at any price, which many people can't. And its presuming they can get health care at the same rate that large companies with pooled risk can get health care, which no one can.
Sure there are a few lower income families that are opting out of their employers health care insurance to save the premiums but they are only a small fraction of the total uninsured.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:gov stats for you. Would you like to deny the obesity epidemic has no significant contribution to health care costs in this country?
Strangly, the poor have higher rates of obesity. What a country, our poor are fat while the rest of the world's are starving. I have a great idea, we can cut back on food stamps which will result in a reduction in costs for food stamps and health care.
Strangly enough, Australia and England both have higher rates of Obesity than the US and their health care systems are still doing a better job than ours at a fraction the cost.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.
Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
That's not true. If you're making enough money to support two kids on your own, you usually don't qualify for real health coverage for yourself.
But let's not worry about mommy having healthcare too, right?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many able bodied adults choose not to, just as I did at one time.
Yeah, a couple of my former neighbors "chose" not to buy health insurance, but they could have "chosen" to if they also "chose" not to feed their children or pay rent.
Now we have SCHIP. The kids are insured. If they are truly needy there are other government programs available for them already.
That's not true. If you're making enough money to support two kids on your own, you usually don't qualify for real health coverage for yourself.
But let's not worry about mommy having healthcare too, right?
Parents can afford it, especially now that the government is paying for their kids.
Average employee contribution to health care, US Census data: $81.37 per month. (two cartons of cigarettes)
posted
First, in response to "parents can afford it," the answer is emphatically no. You can't claim that all parents can afford it; there are plenty who absolutely, absolutely can not. I have met a few of them. They are very real. You're assuming that this fact is contradicted by mentioning the average employee contribution to health care, as though it meant that all people had the ability to get real healthcare without absurd coverage limits, for about eighty bucks a month.
Sad fact of the matter is, not all employers offer coverage like that. Some do offer cheap enough coverage, but the care limitations and deductible are too ridiculous to make it a worthwhile expenditure. In addition, not all people are employed in jobs that provide health coverage in the first place. Many have multiple part-time jobs with no benefits just to keep their kids clothed and housed and fed; I suppose they don't count under your spectre of "truly needy," yes?
You aren't offering real counterpoints, just True Scotsman postulates.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Um, since when does SCHIP cover families making 80k a year?
It varies from state to state, but most state programs concentrate on families that earn less than twice the federal poverty level. For a family of ten, poverty level is a little over $40,000 a year, so a family of 10 earning $80K would qualify for sCHIP.
Of course sCHIP isn't free, you pay some amount per child. But employer health plans tend to have the same premium for a family with 1 child or 9. I suspect most people earning 80K/year would have access to an employee health plan that would likely cost them less than enrolling 8 or 9 kids in sCHIP.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: First, in response to "parents can afford it," the answer is emphatically no. You can't claim that all parents can afford it; there are plenty who absolutely, absolutely can not. I have met a few of them. They are very real. You're assuming that this fact is contradicted by mentioning the average employee contribution to health care, as though it meant that all people had the ability to get real healthcare without absurd coverage limits, for about eighty bucks a month.
Sad fact of the matter is, not all employers offer coverage like that. Some do offer cheap enough coverage, but the care limitations and deductible are too ridiculous to make it a worthwhile expenditure. In addition, not all people are employed in jobs that provide health coverage in the first place. Many have multiple part-time jobs with no benefits just to keep their kids clothed and housed and fed; I suppose they don't count under your spectre of "truly needy," yes?
You aren't offering real counterpoints, just True Scotsman postulates.
I've made this point several different ways now but mal seems to have been vaccinated against facts that don't support his opinions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2007 poverty threshold is $21,027.
In some states, an income of 73,000 would qualify. More kids you have, the higher the poverty level. Also only
This is prior to the current administration removing the bush limits. Kentuck a family of four can make 88k.
It's being paid for by the $1 tax on cigarettes. Better hope people keep on smoking. Do you think if people quit smoking the program will go away? This is the shell game. Number of smokers have been declining but later, they'll find something else to tax.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the family of four in some states could make 32k and have no employer contribution and be paying 12k of that to insurance. However, instead of looking at this family, you are looking at the high end. Also, I thought earlier you said states could do whatever insurance they wanted?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, the family of four in some states could make 32k and have no employer contribution and be paying 12k of that to insurance. However, instead of looking at this family, you are looking at the high end. Also, I thought earlier you said states could do whatever insurance they wanted?
States can do whatever they want, SCHIP is a federally funded state run program. I wasn't arguing against SCHIP only illustrating how those most in need, children and elderly are already covered. I see nothing wrong with able bodied adults paying for themselves.
Some states 32k is better than 60k. This illustrates the idiocy of the federal tax system. My electric bill in WA was $50 at the highest, in FL it reaches $300. You could rent a house in WV for $300 that could easilly cost you $1300 elsewhere. 100k in NYC is not nearly the same as 100k in Idaho or West Virginia. The poverty level is a Federal Line based on income despite the location in which you live. Hense, the percent over FPL that the states determine to be "poverty" due to the local cost of living. Makes sense to me.
I wasn't looking at the "high end" I was looking at US Census "averages".
A family of four making 32k in any state would qualify for SCHIP for their kids.
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.1
- don't need it, choose not to have it, just as I did.
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.1
- Illegal Aliens are counted in your "uninsured" total. I really could care less about them. We are only obligated to provide emergency services to them. They get that.
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.
- Not bad income, maybe if they could keep more of their money they could afford it. Or maybe they CHOOSE not to have it.
When contemplating a job, look at benefits. When deciding what to do with your life, drop out, graduate from high school, go to college, pick a major, join the military, whatever, there are consequences.
Health care is a service not a right. I worked hard for what I have. I am not wealthy and didn't come up in a wealthy household. Don't tax me for some fat lazy highshcool dropouts healthcare. Cover the poor kids and the elderly, I agree.
Sorry, I guess I'm greedy and cold hearted.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not so much that you're 'greedy' or 'cold hearted,' it's that you are ignoring excellent facts being presented to you — I mean, flat out ignoring them, continuing to press on points that Rabbit has shot out of the water — in order to stick with a worse system which costs more money and makes us die earlier.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except you will pay overall less for these programs. If you were truly greedy, you would want this system- since you would pay less and get better service.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And your posting method surely doesn't help. I can't make sense out of your last post, Mal. Those ones at the end of sentences (or sentence fragments) makes me feel like your citing a reference, but then I see none.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When in doubt, google chunks of his text. I mean, not that it backs up his factual grounding; it's just entertaining. I found a bunch of his words from one of his fact-listing posts reprinted verbatim on Conservapedia.
posted
Samp, that explains a lot. Those ones that bothered me so much were references from the National Coalition of Healthcare*, but it crops up in Yahoo Answers, Craigslist (!?), and several other forums.
*DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2008.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I put links on there. Dispute the facts instead of the links. Still waiting for one of you to contest the US Census data. Still waiting for one of you to point out a successful government social program. What is conservapedia? I don't recall where I got the founding fathers quotes but would you disregard them despite the source. You guys are truly getting desperate. Pathetic actually. You twist the numbers for your agenda and you don't like being disproven with government data.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's not so much that you're 'greedy' or 'cold hearted,' it's that you are ignoring excellent facts being presented to you — I mean, flat out ignoring them, continuing to press on points that Rabbit has shot out of the water — in order to stick with a worse system which costs more money and makes us die earlier.
Shot out of water? Might be the other way around. Rabbit tries to pass of the total cost of health care as the cost to the individual. I call him on it with government data. You're looking through the same agenda driven lenses as the rest. You can't see the truth even when the facts come from your beloved government. Still waiting for an example of something that costs less for the government to provide. (here's where you'll show your inconsistencies and IGNORE total cost) Please, convince me how the government is more efficient with our money than private industry......you can't. You can only deflect and state what you believe. You have no facts to back up anything.
What makes us die earlier is a 30% obesity rate that is rising. Maybe you should start worrying about Africa where the average life expectancy is 43 years. Shorten our lives????? Last time I checked life expectancy has done nothing but rise in our country and the elderly are covered already.
American spending on almost everthing is more than the rest of the world. Military is a great example of the world benefitting from our defense. Who gives the most to the UN? Which country donates the most aid to foreign nations? Which country is the most cheritible? And yes, we are the medical innovators for the world. It costs us more. You want stagnate medical development? We could go down your road. Capitalism has created the great drugs we have. You people are so short sighted. Last time I checked, your beloved France, UK and Canada are only benefiting from our medical innovation and military defense.
How about this:
Evil George Bush has spent over 15 Billion for aids relief in Africa and extended 2 million lives. Maybe we should stop taking care of the rest of the world to pay for your proposals, I might go for that.
Talk about dismissing the facts. The single biggest example of a government "universal" social program is social security. Please, one of you try to convince me that your contribution to this is a good return on your investment. Prove to me that it is better than putting that money in a bank for 40 years??? Nope, you can't. You ignore what you can't argue against. If the other govt programs were successful, I might consider another one. Just because an elderly person now depends on their pathetic social security check doesn't make it a success. They would be better off had they invested or saved that money for their entire lives. They wouldn't be dependent on government if the government would get out of the way. It's too late for them, they are owed it, they paid into it. Remember, it was "your account" not a pyramid scheme. There are expendible income limits in our lives and so long as the govt takes a huge bite out of our expendible incomes we can't afford to save and provide for ourselves thus justifying a bigger bite.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Social security certainly helps the elderly. That $1200 per month check is lifting them out of poverty, right? The elderly deserve that and more, they paid into that program their entire lives but the return on their investment is nothing, a net loss of investment money. No wise person would invest 15% of their income for that return. A return that only comes at a given age, if you die you lose it all and if you live you may be able to collect a small fraction of what you've put into it before you die.
How self-involved you are. Social security is not an investment scheme, it has never been one. The government pays out what it receives from payees. It doesn't invest the money for you and keep a chunk, it's a fluid system. That system was enacted in order to lift millions of people out of poverty in a time when it was really needed. If you go on to consider the saved costs on those people's families, as well as the society they lived in (which you stalwartly refuse to do), it is very easy to see the upside.
The point of social security, the bloody point of it, is that it is not for individuals. You can't accept that, I understand, because you're terminally selfish. That money- the money you and I pay into that system, is NOT OURS. It is for the system, which we as a society and a voting public have agreed to create in order to provide for the elderly. When we grow old, no matter what we payed, way back when, we receive the help of OTHERS who are now paying into the system. You want to look at everything through the lense of the private sector, but privatization just doesn't work that way, it will never work that way, because private businesses are concerned with making money. You're so concerned with *what you get* that you are blind to the fact that you already benefit from the social security system. We all do. It keeps millions of people from living in abject poverty, from burdening their families, from inflicting the costs of their continued care on public institutions that would end up spending more on making them better, because they don't have enough to stay healthy and independent. Just from the fact that an elderly person has the liberty to pursue some small contribution to the world, because he or she doesn't have to work past the point of dignity- you benefit from that, and if you don't, personally, you know many people who do, and the benefit they take from it is visited on you in innumerable ways. And ultimately, past all the practical arguments, past all the hooplah and BS, it's the dignified and right thing to do for elderly people. I'm really sick of the rich, or the want-to-be rich, talking brass-tacks, instead of looking at the people who benefit, and seeing the good in it. Sometimes an anecdote *is* an important point.
If you provide all of that money to a private system, it will find every way imaginable to make sure that it receives the most possible in investment, and pays out the least possible amount in benefits. Don't for a moment fool yourself into believing that very quickly, privatized social security money would be spent on lobbyists attempting to find ways of limiting pay-outs, and the public would be paying a company money to find ways of not giving that money back- that's what happens in energy, in transportation- in everything that should be regulated, and isn't. That's what happens in a private system, the winners win big, and the suckers get less and less, and all the while they pay for the privilege of being screwed. I'll take a conscientious governmental system that I can actually be a part of, and one that is actually responsible to me, rather than one to whom I end up being responsible.
But forget it, join the free-state movement and live in anarchy for all I care. You hate everything about our country, and will claim to love it more than any of us.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Social security certainly helps the elderly. That $1200 per month check is lifting them out of poverty, right? The elderly deserve that and more, they paid into that program their entire lives but the return on their investment is nothing, a net loss of investment money. No wise person would invest 15% of their income for that return. A return that only comes at a given age, if you die you lose it all and if you live you may be able to collect a small fraction of what you've put into it before you die.
How self-involved you are. Social security is not an investment scheme, it has never been one. The government pays out what it receives from payees. It doesn't invest the money for you and keep a chunk, it's a fluid system. That system was enacted in order to lift millions of people out of poverty in a time when it was really needed. If you go on to consider the saved costs on those people's families, as well as the society they lived in (which you stalwartly refuse to do), it is very easy to see the upside.
The point of social security, the bloody point of it, is that it is not for individuals. You can't accept that, I understand, because you're terminally selfish. That money- the money you and I pay into that system, is NOT OURS. It is for the system, which we as a society and a voting public have agreed to create in order to provide for the elderly. When we grow old, no matter what we payed, way back when, we receive the help of OTHERS who are now paying into the system. You want to look at everything through the lense of the private sector, but privatization just doesn't work that way, it will never work that way, because private businesses are concerned with making money.
If you provide all of that money to a private system, it will find every way imaginable to make sure that it receives the most possible in investment, and pays out the least possible amount in benefits. Don't for a moment fool yourself into believing that very quickly, privatized social security money would be spent on lobbyists attempting to find ways of limiting pay-outs, and the public would be paying a company money to find ways of not giving that money back- that's what happens in energy, in transportation- in everything that should be regulated, and isn't. That's what happens in a private system, the winners win big, and the suckers get less and less, and all the while they pay for the privilege of being screwed. I'll take a conscientious governmental system that I can actually be a part of, and one that is actually responsible to me, rather than one to whom I end up being responsible.
But forget it, join the free-state movement and live in anarchy for all I care. You hate everything about our country, and will claim to love it more than any of us.
Really,
Why then do you get a statement of "YOUR ACCOUNT" every year. The statement rattles off how much you've contributed to your account and based upon that what you will receive. What you get paid depends on what "YOU'VE" contributed. I doubt you know much about this issue. An old woman that has never worked will get nothing from it. In fact, you can go to the Social Security Administration's website and use their "RETIREMENT CALCULATOR" provided you have enough credits to qualify.
"The Retirement Estimator produces estimates that are based on your actual Social Security earnings record. Retirement estimates are just that, estimates. They will vary slightly from the actual benefit you may receive in the future because: Your Social Security earnings record is constantly being updated; Our calculators use different parameters and assumptions (e.g., different stop work ages, future earnings projections, etc.); and Your actual future benefit will be adjusted for inflation. "
It's treated as a retirement investment program based solely on your individual input into your personal account. My point is, the account doesn't exhist. They already spent your money on a bridge, that's why it's broke.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't spend it on a bridge you heel. They spent it on payouts. You're simultaneously saying that it isn't an investment program, which I agree with, but that somehow I'm wrong because it "looks" like an investment program. Are you only concerned with what it looks like? Are you really so obtuse as to argue that it is what it looks like when I say it isn't, and that it is not what it looks like when I say that there's not something wrong with it? Can you not parse the difference?
Come to that, are the taxes you pay an account you keep with the government? You're one of those people who's scandalized that somehow government services are not tailored to your specific contribution to the tax rolls, aren't you? I'm all for changing the name of the game- call it the social security fund, and do away with the tiered system, but what are you for? It seems increasingly that you're really for nothing. You will never be satisfied until everything you have ever done for anyone, anywhere, is taken account of in some way that advantages you.
quote: that's why it's broke.
Uhuh. It's been pointed out to you 1) Why it isn't broke, it's solvent for the next three decades, and 2) the reason why it is not solvent for longer, and the ways that can be averted.
In summation, you are wrong, and you are most decidedly a part of the problem here. The system is not broke. It isn't. It won't be a long time. You're idea of failure is a little strange- the imperfect nature of the process is too much for you to handle? The fact that things can be done to keep the system working is not good enough? If there is ever a kink in any system, it should be abandoned despite all positive outcomes? Really? Really really?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
By 2011 tax receipts will be less than expenditures and reserve funds will need to be tapped. Social Security reserve funds will be completely exhausted in three decades and Medicares will be completely exhausted in eight years. (reserve funds are IOU's for money already "borrowed" from the funds long ago) Huh, I think we throw bankers in prison for doing that, too bad bankers can't print money or borrow from the Chinese.
You are correct, it will not be COMPLETELY bankrupt until then so lets call it a success today. You really are short sighted. Are you one of those guys who pays one credit card with another or ignores imminent bankruptcy. By the way, 30 years may be a long time for you, but my children will be adults and have to live with our consequences.
People who think just like you blocked drilling for oil ten years ago claiming we wouldn't get a drop for ten years so it wasn't worth it. The same people are saying the same thing today. Barney Frank denied the problems with Fannie and Freddie up until the day they collapsed. I think you'll be Barney from now on.
Yes you've offered solution to save the program but not help the people. I understand the objective is not whats best for the people but what is best for the preservation of a failing government program. We could reduce coverage amounts. We could raise the age of benefit or the Dems favorite, raise taxes. Reducing the amounts is a horrible idea since the return on your investment is already pathetic. We could raise the age which sucks for the same reason. Pay in a large portion of your income your entire life so you can collect a pitiful check for an even shorter amount of time.
I've got the answer, a multifaceted approach that considers all your wonderful solutions:
Lets pay more money for a longer period of time to get a lower benefit for a shorter period of time. ----- Pretty much sums up all your "solutions". I have a better idea...pay the people the money owed to them. Let me opt out and invest my own money. You choose to stay in the system, we'll see who has a better retirement.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets pay more money for a longer period of time to get a lower benefit for a shorter period of time. ----- Pretty much sums up all your "solutions".
No. The solution is that since we are living longer, we will have to work longer or save a larger percentage of our income while we are working or consume less during the years we are not working. It has nothing to do with Social Security per se. Its a simple result of having a longer life span.
As I asked before, do you really believe that you can live 10 years longer than your grandparents did, work fewer year than they did and have it balance under any possible system?
And no, simply earning a higher rate of return on your investments won't solve the problem unless you plan to eat money when you get old. People don't need or really want money when they retire, they need and want food, clothes, housing, transportation, medical care, entertainment and other goods and services. Someone has to be working to provide those goods and services. The problem can't be solved by doubling the savings of every retired person, that would just cause inflation as the demand for goods and services outstrips the supply.
The underlying problem can not be solved by saving more money or a higher return on investment. The underlying problem is having a larger fraction of the population who will be retired and therefore unproductive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I feel that I live in a nation because that nation is a group of people committed to helping each other live in peace. You live in a world in which it's your job to make sure you survive, and screw everyone else, and any kind of plan that sounds anything unlike, "everybody for himself."
That's the problem here- you are not evolved. You are a neanderthal, and a world of neanderthals, though they may be bigger, stronger, and faster today- is a world with no one in it tomorrow.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: See, I feel that I live in a nation because that nation is a group of people committed to helping each other live in peace. You live in a world in which it's your job to make sure you survive, and screw everyone else, and any kind of plan that sounds anything unlike, "everybody for himself."
That's the problem here- you are not evolved. You are a neanderthal, and a world of neanderthals, though they may be bigger, stronger, and faster today- is a world with no one in it tomorrow.
Ohh, you almost touched me. Obama's olive branch is working real well with North Korea, Iran and Somalian Pirates. Hey they haven't done that in 200 years. Sometimes cowboys are good to have in office. America will never have a population problem. Plenty of people around the wold lining up to get in here. If we needed more workers tomorrow, we'd open up our borders and they would flee your kumbaya land of plenty in heart beat. You know why? Opportunity. Opportunity that the socialist and communist nations don't have. Your watered down society of mediocrity where everyone has equally crappy lives. (don't look at the muslim in the corner) Muslims, come to America, the land of opportunity and succeed or go to France and be an underclass with government provided health care.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Obama's olive branch is working real well with North Korea, Iran and Somalian Pirates. Hey they haven't done that in 200 years.
First, do you not even notice when you try to change the subject?
Second, did you not even notice that pirate activity started increasing way back when Bush was in office, including attacks on American ships?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets pay more money for a longer period of time to get a lower benefit for a shorter period of time. ----- Pretty much sums up all your "solutions".
No. The solution is that since we are living longer, we will have to work longer or save a larger percentage of our income while we are working or consume less during the years we are not working. It has nothing to do with Social Security per se. Its a simple result of having a longer life span.
As I asked before, do you really believe that you can live 10 years longer than your grandparents did, work fewer year than they did and have it balance under any possible system?
And no, simply earning a higher rate of return on your investments won't solve the problem unless you plan to eat money when you get old. People don't need or really want money when they retire, they need and want food, clothes, housing, transportation, medical care, entertainment and other goods and services. Someone has to be working to provide those goods and services. The problem can't be solved by doubling the savings of every retired person, that would just cause inflation as the demand for goods and services outstrips the supply.
The underlying problem can not be solved by saving more money or a higher return on investment. The underlying problem is having a larger fraction of the population who will be retired and therefore unproductive.
Longer lifespan requires more money for retirement.
Money is how you get the things you want when you retire. You make absolutely no sense.
It's good that the goverment is looking out for inflation by making sure we don't have enough money to put in savings accounts. You really do not understand economics.....the money, even in savings, is invested into the economy by banks.
Saying that retired people are unproductive is not accurate. We have this magical means of storing the productivity of our lives,...it's called money. Let me explain,,,,the squirrel gathers more nuts than he needs during the summer so he has something to eat during the winter. That is unless big mamma squirrel comes along and gathers up all the excess ones so they can be saved for his later benefit. You see, he is either lazy or greedy and can't be counted on to gather enough for himself so big mamma squirrel does it for him. Problem is when winter time comes, big mamma squirrel has given too many nuts to the all the other squirrels who stopped foraging and have learned to rely on her. So the nuts are rationed when they would've gathered more on their own.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me reiterate: America is a socialist country.
It's getting there and it's getting far enough. During the campaign Obama laughed about the "socialist" rhetoric.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me reiterate: America is a socialist country.
I know it's like the sign of the apocalypse is that Americans might actually care enough to try helping each other out to the point that we damn ourselves by minimizing (dare I say eliminating) poverty.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me reiterate: America is a socialist country.
I know it's like the sign of the apocalypse is that Americans might actually care enough to try helping each other out to the point that we damn ourselves by minimizing (dare I say eliminating) poverty.
I've seen poverty and it doesn't exist in America (ok, maybe in appalachia). You have an air conditioned roof over your head, enough food to eat and be fat, a car, a phone, a tv, and an education, you're rich by world standards. We don't have true poverty but we do have plenty of jealousy. Spend a few days in Guatemala, Colon, Ethiopia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jamaica, Haiti, North Korea, Mexico on and on. Your defenition of poverty, "I don't have as much as the other guy and it's not fair."
Being poor is a very relative concept. If you have two pigs you're rich in some places. Since you are such wise and worldly people, you must see how lucky we are. You really need to learn to appreciate and be proud of what made us great. God, Capitalism and freedom. We have guaranteed opportunity not guaranteed outcomes. Some people are destined to be ditch diggers and some ditch diggers children become corporate executives.
posted
"I've seen poverty and it doesn't exist in America."
I haven't traveled around all that much, but I've seen people without roofs over their heads, without enough to eat and are certainly not fat, have no car, have no phone, have no TV, and have little to no education.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I've seen poverty and it doesn't exist in America."
You've obviously never been to Northern New Mexico, or any number of Indian reservations. There is real poverty in the US,
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: I assure you I understand what poverty looks like having grown up outside this country. I've been to places like Kenya and Tanzania. I've been to the boonies of China and Thailand. I've also been amongst the wealthy. I know that there are places worse than the US. But how can we simultaneously say that we need to stop giving aid to other countries so we can take care of America and America is just fine, it's other countries that have it really bad?
I remember that because I grew up overseas I typically only saw the Utah part of America every summer. My parents drove me from relative to relatives house. Because of this I was under the impression that almost all of America was like that. Sure there were bums in the big cities, but they were all lazy right?
Access to medical care is not a luxury. You can't cure yourself like you could your car if you REALLY wanted to. Your friend who knows alot about medicine can't just perform surgery. Unless you are extremely wealthy you can't afford treatment without insurance. People of all walks of life get sick, and not all of them can afford insurance. I am working very hard towards getting good employment with the government which will include health insurance. A huge weight will be lifted off my shoulders if that happens. But I recognize that it wouldn't work if everyone did that. I also recognize that there are tons of people like me who just won't make it if disaster strikes. The day health insurance costs about as much as the water or electricity bill each month is the day I'll stop insisting we get government involved.
I've tried to get insurance, even asked my wonderful wife to try and make it without zoloft so that we could qualify and the insurance company still told us no. I have no history of illness, neither does she (physically, her mother is bi-polar), but she was taking prescription medication for a time and we were honest enough to admit it.
I tried getting insurance just for myself, just something that I could afford paying the copay for if something happened to me. I could not afford the monthly premiums.
When I look at my situation I think, I am still better off than many in America, I wonder how they cope. Unless health insurance is run as a non profit outfit companies will always fail to provide the level of coverage for the population that I would find acceptable. The need for affordable insurance for all has been ignored for so long and to our detriment that I turn to the government to help us come up with a solution.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me reiterate: America is a socialist country.
It's getting there and it's getting far enough. During the campaign Obama laughed about the "socialist" rhetoric.
Because he knows, as all thinking and well informed people realize, he's no more socialist than some of our finest presidents- which is to say, he is willing to do what works, and what is consistent with the constitution. That's saying quite a bit more than your lot of ideologues, who don't bother with making things work, or with things that have to do with the silly constitution.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
