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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 706
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Rex Rex is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 706
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 706
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 706
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 706
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,013
Default 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.

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,013
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why do I keep expecting the borgs to satisfy me? DerbyDad03 Home Repair 30 October 2nd 11 07:07 AM
Paint matching (am I expecting too much...?) Nate Nagel Home Repair 47 November 6th 09 10:06 PM
******************************Expecting photos and info******************************** [email protected] Home Repair 0 May 23rd 08 03:43 PM
Get your annually expecting ticket beneath my drawer. Upscale Woodworking 0 May 15th 06 09:42 PM
Am I expecting too much? Kathy Home Repair 3 August 15th 05 09:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"