Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the full
Social Security benefit until death. This article caused the change in my thinking. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers Mikek |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:50:51 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the full Social Security benefit until death. This article caused the change in my thinking. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers Mikek That disclaimer has been on my statements for many years. It's one reason I started SS at 62 |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On 7/31/2015 7:26 AM, Rex wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:50:51 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote: I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the full Social Security benefit until death. This article caused the change in my thinking. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers Mikek That disclaimer has been on my statements for many years. It's one reason I started SS at 62 But it's more than the disclaimer. Something will need to be done by 2033. Probably before. Either raise SS withholding, reduce SS benefits or take it out of the general fund. ah, oh wait. In 2033 the lock box* will only have 73 cents for every $1 of out going benefits. * a mythical place within the general fund for the money that is credited to the SS fund. The money credited to this account has been spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. :-( Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:26 AM, Rex wrote: On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:50:51 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote: I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the full Social Security benefit until death. This article caused the change in my thinking. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers Mikek That disclaimer has been on my statements for many years. It's one reason I started SS at 62 But it's more than the disclaimer. Something will need to be done by 2033. Probably before. Either raise SS withholding, reduce SS benefits or take it out of the general fund. ah, oh wait. In 2033 the lock box* will only have 73 cents for every $1 of out going benefits. * a mythical place within the general fund for the money that is credited to the SS fund. The money credited to this account has been spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. :-( What the government did (naturally when Dems had the White House and The House and Senate at the same time) was literally, legally, the same thing Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels did in Dumb and Dumber. They took the money and replaced it with IOU's. But us conservatives are just so dumb aren't we. Fox News is so stupid as certain posters like to say (well actually I stopped watching all TV news in 1984). Bush is such a dummy, etc. But seriously, Christopher Hitchens had a great retort for the people who repeatedly chanted "Bush is stupid." He said it was the kind of criticism stupid people would come up with. (His exact words are on youtube somewhere, in a Bill Maher interview IIRC.) During the 1990's they kept chanting "affordable housing" and I wondered what the hell they could possibly have in mind. Pay construction workers less? Open land for development? Repeal regulations? They were more clever than that. It turned out what they had in mind was to force banks to give mortgages away under threat of prosecution on Civil Rights grounds. So now, when they say there is no problem with Social Security, what do they really have in mind this time? I think I know. They will confiscate private property, starting with corporate property. Then they will effectively take from the value of 401k's and other savings. When they can't possibly get enough revenue from the current year's income, they will essentially tax past years over again. Eventually they will move on to personal property by indirect means like imposing property taxes comparable to charging rent. When they achieve their goal of the state owning all property there won't be a SS problem or any problem because they'll just pull all the strings. -- |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:29:31 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote: amdx wrote: On 7/31/2015 7:26 AM, Rex wrote: On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:50:51 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote: I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the full Social Security benefit until death. This article caused the change in my thinking. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers Mikek That disclaimer has been on my statements for many years. It's one reason I started SS at 62 But it's more than the disclaimer. Something will need to be done by 2033. Probably before. Either raise SS withholding, reduce SS benefits or take it out of the general fund. ah, oh wait. In 2033 the lock box* will only have 73 cents for every $1 of out going benefits. * a mythical place within the general fund for the money that is credited to the SS fund. The money credited to this account has been spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. :-( What the government did (naturally when Dems had the White House and The House and Senate at the same time) was literally, legally, the same thing Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels did in Dumb and Dumber. They took the money and replaced it with IOU's. There never was any money there. Ever. It's a combination of ordinary Treasury bonds and "special obligation" bonds. It always has been. But us conservatives are just so dumb aren't we. Ah, well, you said it. g Fox News is so stupid as certain posters like to say (well actually I stopped watching all TV news in 1984). Bush is such a dummy, etc. But seriously, Christopher Hitchens had a great retort for the people who repeatedly chanted "Bush is stupid." He said it was the kind of criticism stupid people would come up with. (His exact words are on youtube somewhere, in a Bill Maher interview IIRC.) During the 1990's they kept chanting "affordable housing" and I wondered what the hell they could possibly have in mind. Pay construction workers less? Open land for development? Repeal regulations? They were more clever than that. It turned out what they had in mind was to force banks to give mortgages away under threat of prosecution on Civil Rights grounds. No, that wasn't the basis of it. The basis was to build lower-cost housing when builders just wanted to build ever-higher-priced housing. There was no plan or policy behind that; just a desire, which fit into the reality when it seemed like every builder in America was building McMansions and lobbying housing commissions and zoning boards to build bigger houses on ever-smaller lots. What you're talking about is another part of the puzzle, based on the CRA and banks that complained the feds were forcing them to make risky loans. But the banks had spent decades making loans at higher rates to perfectly credit-worthy customers, with rates based solely on their race. If you don't know the origins of the mortgage enforcements, look up "redlining" and "reverse redlining," particularly the practices of Wells Fargo Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Mortgages Anarcho-capitalists, like our friend Jon Ball, will now go into overdrive while leaning on the horn, to dispute this. g But it can't be disputed. Several banks were indicted for doing the same things: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html Banks wanted to make the loans, and, when they figured out how to offload them in fraudulent "tranches" that were mixed with some quality loans, they went at it hell-bent. Countrywide was getting rich on it. Meantime, the feds *were* pressuring banks to make loans that were bad bets. There was plenty of bad faith to go around. It was a mess that will be argued for years to come. So now, when they say there is no problem with Social Security, what do they really have in mind this time? I think I know. They will confiscate private property, starting with corporate property. There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. Then they will effectively take from the value of 401k's and other savings. When they can't possibly get enough revenue from the current year's income, they will essentially tax past years over again. Eventually they will move on to personal property by indirect means like imposing property taxes comparable to charging rent. When they achieve their goal of the state owning all property there won't be a SS problem or any problem because they'll just pull all the strings. What's it like, living in a world of fear-fueled paranoia? Does it make you happy to believe all of these cockamamie myths? Do you bother to check them out? If not, why not? -- Ed Huntress |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. I think the government said that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year. Might have been as of 2015. This from the government web site. Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. It may be no problem to you, but it sounds like a problem to me. Dan |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Socieal Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. It's not a catastrophe. It's just the result of changing demographics. And, if the Medicaid projections for the rest of the century hold true (both accounts are intermingled), we're all screwed anyway, SS, Medicare, or not. -- Ed Huntress I think the government said that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year. Might have been as of 2015. This from the government web site. Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. It may be no problem to you, but it sounds like a problem to me. Dan |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. I think the government said that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year. Might have been as of 2015. This from the government web site. Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. It may be no problem to you, but it sounds like a problem to me. Dan Particularly the part : " income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete" Like that isnt pie in the sky dreaming.... |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 5:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Socieal Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. It's not a catastrophe. It's just the result of changing demographics. And, if the Medicaid projections for the rest of the century hold true (both accounts are intermingled), we're all screwed anyway, SS, Medicare, or not. -- Ed Huntress I did not say it was a catastrophy or that it could not be solved. But it sure sounds like a problem to me. Say you are driving in your car and blue smoke starts coming out of the exhause pipe. That is a problem. Sure it can be fixed, but it is going to take money to do it. And you might have thought you were going to spend the money on something else. Dan |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:49:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. I think the government said that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year. Might have been as of 2015. This from the government web site. Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. It may be no problem to you, but it sounds like a problem to me. Dan Particularly the part : " income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete" Like that isnt pie in the sky dreaming.... Are you basing this on the same financial expertise you apply to your personal accounts? -- Ed Huntress |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 5:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Socieal Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. It's not a catastrophe. It's just the result of changing demographics. And, if the Medicaid projections for the rest of the century hold true (both accounts are intermingled), we're all screwed anyway, SS, Medicare, or not. -- Ed Huntress I did not say it was a catastrophy or that it could not be solved. But it sure sounds like a problem to me. Those reports are always cautionary, telling Congress that it has to act within a certain timeframe or there will be bad consequences. That isn't anything new. It's the nature of the beast. You know how the age demographics are going in this country (and most western countries, plus some Asian countries). Sooner or later, you either have to increase taxes or decrease benefits. There is no magic lottery that will pay for it all. If Congress acts fairly soon, the adjustments will be modest. Look at what happened in 1988. Say you are driving in your car and blue smoke starts coming out of the exhause pipe. That is a problem. Sure it can be fixed, but it is going to take money to do it. And you might have thought you were going to spend the money on something else. If you have blue smoke and you didn't have a clue it was coming, that's one thing. When demographic and actuarial statistics give you a 30- or 50-year warning, that's a different thing. -- Ed Huntress Dan |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 5:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Socieal Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. It's not a catastrophe. It's just the result of changing demographics. And, if the Medicaid projections for the rest of the century hold true (both accounts are intermingled), we're all screwed anyway, SS, Medicare, or not. -- Ed Huntress I did not say it was a catastrophy or that it could not be solved. But it sure sounds like a problem to me. Say you are driving in your car and blue smoke starts coming out of the exhause pipe. That is a problem. Sure it can be fixed, but it is going to take money to do it. And you might have thought you were going to spend the money on something else. Dan "Blue smoke" hardly sounds like a simple adjustment..... |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On 8/2/2015 4:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Social Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. What was the 1988 adjustment? All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly benefits ..." And something about the notch. I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:19:05 -0500, amdx wrote:
On 8/2/2015 4:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Social Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. What was the 1988 adjustment? All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly benefits ..." And something about the notch. I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek Eh, sorry, Mikek, that was 1983 -- the Greenspan commission. It's getting harder to remember dates... As for your suggestions, I generally agree. Means testing is an essential one, IMO. Be prepared to make adjustments quickly with changes in the economy and employment, is another. I'd bump up the retirement age at least two years or so. Then do an analysis with a few assumption options on the economy, and see if anything else needs to be done. And get started quickly, so the adjustments are as gradual as they can be. -- Ed Huntress |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek Give people the option to decline the amount of benefits they receive in exchange for a reduction in what they have to contribute while working. Something like you can pay eighty percent of the usual while working, but you will only get 75% of the benefits you would get if you paid the full boat. Dan |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
"amdx" wrote in message ... On 8/2/2015 4:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Social Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. What was the 1988 adjustment? All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly benefits ..." And something about the notch. I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek There will be no COLA this year. Government says there is no inflation. Do you know that dividends pay no FICA tax. Best Regards Tom. |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:12:21 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: As was stated, the liberal government after the war stole the bulk of the money to pay for war and said the money would come in the real time deposits. They knew how to spend but not to save or calculate. Martin What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. Dan |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:26:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:26:17 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress It's really very simple. My SS payments are issued by the US treasury not some trust fund. The talking heads don't know what they are talking about. The SSA does the accounting as to who gets what based on how much they paid in FICA taxes and what age they begin to collect SS payments. Remember FICA is a tax not a savings account. The government can spend taxes as soon as it gets the money no mater what the source. Best Regards Tom. |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On 8/2/2015 7:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:19:05 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/2/2015 4:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Social Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. What was the 1988 adjustment? All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly benefits ..." And something about the notch. I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek Eh, sorry, Mikek, that was 1983 -- the Greenspan commission. It's getting harder to remember dates... As for your suggestions, I generally agree. Means testing is an essential one, IMO. Means testing is the one I hate most. I've spent 34 years living under my less than middle class income so I could have a nest egg at retirement. With a means test, those that earned 2 x what I did will not get means tested, but because I saved, I will. That's like spanking the good kid when the bad kid acts up. It just ain't right. Be prepared to make adjustments quickly with changes in the economy and employment, is another. I'd bump up the retirement age at least two years or so. Then do an analysis with a few assumption options on the economy, and see if anything else needs to be done. And get started quickly, so the adjustments are as gradual as they can be. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:03:56 -0500, amdx wrote:
On 8/2/2015 7:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:19:05 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/2/2015 4:37 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth. -- Ed Huntress You might make a fuller explaination of this. Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said in 1987. Social Security needs another adjustment like it had it 1988. What was the 1988 adjustment? All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly benefits ..." And something about the notch. I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap. Cutting benefits, a political nightmare. Increase taxes, rough but probably doable. Raise the retirement age, doable. Remove/increase the cap, doable. Got any others? Your thoughts. Mikek Eh, sorry, Mikek, that was 1983 -- the Greenspan commission. It's getting harder to remember dates... As for your suggestions, I generally agree. Means testing is an essential one, IMO. Means testing is the one I hate most. I've spent 34 years living under my less than middle class income so I could have a nest egg at retirement. With a means test, those that earned 2 x what I did will not get means tested, but because I saved, I will. That's like spanking the good kid when the bad kid acts up. It just ain't right. That could be a problem, but it depends on how they "means test." The best thing, IMO, would be some combination of income over a long span ot time, and resources. In any case, I recognize the weakness of it. It's something to consider. Be prepared to make adjustments quickly with changes in the economy and employment, is another. I'd bump up the retirement age at least two years or so. Then do an analysis with a few assumption options on the economy, and see if anything else needs to be done. And get started quickly, so the adjustments are as gradual as they can be. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:29:22 -0700, "azotic"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:26:17 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress It's really very simple. My SS payments are issued by the US treasury not some trust fund. The talking heads don't know what they are talking about. The SSA does the accounting as to who gets what based on how much they paid in FICA taxes and what age they begin to collect SS payments. Remember FICA is a tax not a savings account. The government can spend taxes as soon as it gets the money no mater what the source. Best Regards Tom. There are good explanations of how it works in various places, including the SSA. Basically, it's never changed. It's the way most pensions work, too, whether they're government or private-industry accounts. Congress changed the system for the U.S. Postal Service, and damned near drove them broke. Nobody can pay for a whole generation ahead. -- Ed Huntress |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
- But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress You must have not paid any attention to Al Gore. During the presidential debate, Vice President Gore told the nation, "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt." You really have a better memory than that. Dan |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:15:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
There are good explanations of how it works in various places, including the SSA. Basically, it's never changed. It's the way most pensions work, too, whether they're government or private-industry accounts. Congress changed the system for the U.S. Postal Service, and damned near drove them broke. Nobody can pay for a whole generation ahead. -- Ed Huntress Bull****. Private industry is required to make payments into a pension account. And this money is invested so that it increases. The government does not have any investments. Dan |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
Means testing is the one I hate most. I've spent 34 years living under my less than middle class income so I could have a nest egg at retirement. With a means test, those that earned 2 x what I did will not get means tested, but because I saved, I will. That's like spanking the good kid when the bad kid acts up. It just ain't right. There are already three means tests for Social Security. First is the amount they credit you with. I do not remember the exact figures, but they credit you with 100 % of your earnings up to about $25,000 a year. Then they credit you with something like 50% of your earnings up to about $50,000. And they credit you with something like 10 % for earnings over the $50,000. Second social security is income tax free as long as your income is low. But they tax 85% of your benefits if your income is above some level. I do not pay much attention to the amount of income where this happens. I always have to pay income tax on 85% of my Social Security. And third they make you pay extra for Medicare if your income is above about $200,000. Yipee, my wife and I get to pay that too. I too spent less than many of my friends and saved more. So get to pay more taxes now. Now I agree that Social Security is needed. Too many people will not save and need some way that they end up with something. But you ought to be able to opt out of some of the FICA taxes in return for not getting as much from Social Security. |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 12:54:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: - But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress You must have not paid any attention to Al Gore. During the presidential debate, Vice President Gore told the nation, "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt." You really have a better memory than that. And you believed him? I thought you would have known enough about it to know better. -- Ed Huntress |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 12:58:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:15:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There are good explanations of how it works in various places, including the SSA. Basically, it's never changed. It's the way most pensions work, too, whether they're government or private-industry accounts. Congress changed the system for the U.S. Postal Service, and damned near drove them broke. Nobody can pay for a whole generation ahead. -- Ed Huntress Bull****. Private industry is required to make payments into a pension account. And this money is invested so that it increases. The government does not have any investments. Ah, right, I was thinking about the plan my dad was invested in, with Sears, which put 100% of it into Sears stock. That was before ERISA outlawed the practice, and it was common with very large companies. The "money" didn't exist. Sears had the money as part of its equity. The value of the stock depended on the success of Sears, like the value of Treasury bonds depends on the success of the US economy. -- Ed Huntress |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress You must have not paid any attention to Al Gore. During the presidential debate, Vice President Gore told the nation, "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt." You really have a better memory than that. And you believed him? I thought you would have known enough about it to know better. -- Ed Huntress You said no one ever told you that. My reply has nothing to do with what I believe . It was just that people in the government did try to tell you that Social Security was safe because of the trust fund. They made a big thing about the trust fund. Anyone with any sense knew better, but millions were deceived. Big lies sometimes work well enough. Dan |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:29:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:59:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. -- Ed Huntress You must have not paid any attention to Al Gore. During the presidential debate, Vice President Gore told the nation, "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt." You really have a better memory than that. And you believed him? I thought you would have known enough about it to know better. -- Ed Huntress You said no one ever told you that. I don't think I ever heard Gore or anyone else say that. If I had, I would have known enough not to believe it. My reply has nothing to do with what I believe . It was just that people in the government did try to tell you that Social Security was safe because of the trust fund. They made a big thing about the trust fund. Anyone with any sense knew better, but millions were deceived. Greenspan didn't help, but his argument was pretty arcane. In any case, most people think that economics is balancing a checkbook and learning to bake an apple pie. I just throw up my hands over what they believe. Look at the insanity that BMUS regularly posts. He's got the cost of a Big Mac up to $17 now, with no apology or correction. g Big lies sometimes work well enough. Sure. Dan |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On 8/3/2015 4:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
I just throw up my hands over what they believe. Look at the insanity that BMUS regularly posts. He's got the cost of a Big Mac up to $17 now, with no apology or correction. g No $17 Big Macs, McDonolds will phase out employees as costs increase. It's already started, https://www.google.com/search?q=mCDO...utf-8&oe=utf-8 Fast food chains are exploring new ways for customers to order their meals without having to interact with a cashier. Labor costs are rising and consumers are demanding ever faster, more convenient service. At McDonald’s, self-service kiosks are popping up in restaurants in the U.S. after the burger chain saw some success with the machines overseas. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
The fund was sacked during or just after WWII. A long time ago.
Was never repaid as stated and they just kept spending and created the IRS. Martin On 8/3/2015 11:27 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:26:17 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
Then the company says they can't make the retirements and the fund
is taken over by the government. And the company dies as planned. Many pensions went that way. There are stronger laws now but not always. Martin On 8/3/2015 2:58 PM, wrote: On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:15:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: There are good explanations of how it works in various places, including the SSA. Basically, it's never changed. It's the way most pensions work, too, whether they're government or private-industry accounts. Congress changed the system for the U.S. Postal Service, and damned near drove them broke. Nobody can pay for a whole generation ahead. -- Ed Huntress Bull****. Private industry is required to make payments into a pension account. And this money is invested so that it increases. The government does not have any investments. Dan |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:30:50 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: The fund was sacked during or just after WWII. A long time ago. Was never repaid as stated and they just kept spending and created the IRS. Martin There never was a fund. There never was any money in it. There was nothing to repay. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was created in 1862. -- Ed Huntress On 8/3/2015 11:27 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:26:17 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote: What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter. The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was, any actual money there. -- Ed Huntress But the trust fund was publicized as having money stored up in it. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that. Anyone who followed the extensive news coverage of the adjustments made in '83, or Greenspan's controversial comments about it in the years since, would know better. |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
Then why did the law state that no stock market investment allowed,
just cash is cash. ? That means the fund was there if it had rules. Martin On 8/4/2015 2:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:30:50 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote: The fund was sacked during or just after WWII. A long time ago. Was never repaid as stated and they just kept spending and created the IRS. Martin There never was a fund. There never was any money in it. There was nothing to repay. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was created in 1862. |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Under 65 and expecting SS ?
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:50:15 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote: Then why did the law state that no stock market investment allowed, just cash is cash. ? That means the fund was there if it had rules. Martin It doesn't say anything about cash. It specifies that the "fund" is kept in the form of Treasury bonds. And the rules are specific about it. -- Ed Huntress On 8/4/2015 2:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:30:50 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote: The fund was sacked during or just after WWII. A long time ago. Was never repaid as stated and they just kept spending and created the IRS. Martin There never was a fund. There never was any money in it. There was nothing to repay. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was created in 1862. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why do I keep expecting the borgs to satisfy me? | Home Repair | |||
Paint matching (am I expecting too much...?) | Home Repair | |||
******************************Expecting photos and info******************************** | Home Repair | |||
Get your annually expecting ticket beneath my drawer. | Woodworking | |||
Am I expecting too much? | Home Repair |