On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:09:55 -0700, "jon banquer"
wrote:

He's not a fool

Poor clueless G.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:09:55 -0700, "jon banquer"
wrote:

Michael,


A) You usually post a load of BS about some term you
have *heard of*, just like jb did/does. You make most
of it up without actually knowing much. Usually things
are NOT as you imagined.

I like it G.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in
:

snip A whole lotta nonsense.

I know what you don't like about the proposed changes.

As you know all about them, what are they? Exactly?
How does the math come out over what time span?
Compared to?

Nice selective snippage there Cliff. You have taken what I wrote and put
it in completely new context. Notice the absence of a question mark. You
took a piece of a statement, snipped it and turned it into a question.
That's a lot of work, especially for you. So it's safe to say that my
assumption in its original context was correct. Hit a nerve?
But I'll play along a bit.
I know this. I pay in $21,800.00 per year. My projected benefit when I
become eligible at age 67. That's right 67! Is a little over $27,000.00
per year in 2004 dollars. Odds are I could expect to collect that for 13
years. That's pretty bad no matter how you look at it, seeing as from
this day forward I'll pay in well over 1/2 million dollars, not to
mention the heap of money I've paid in already. I could take 1/3 of that
money starting today and easily equal that rate of return, between today
and the day I retire. Never mind all that I've paid in previously, nor
the other 2/3.

Here are a few questions for you.
Why can't this situation be improved upon?
Why should we leave it alone?
The problem S.S. was designed to fix is nearly gone. Why can't it be
scaled down?
Why do you rail against deficit spending, yet support a welfare program
predicated on it?

snip

Dan

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
...

I know this. I pay in $21,800.00 per year. My projected benefit when I
become eligible at age 67. That's right 67! Is a little over $27,000.00
per year in 2004 dollars.

Why do you pay $21,800, Dan? I thought the SECA (self-employed, which is the
highest rate) rate for SSI was 12.4% up to $90,000 net income for 2005:
$11,160. If you're an employee, it's half of that.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
...

I know this. I pay in $21,800.00 per year. My projected benefit when
I become eligible at age 67. That's right 67! Is a little over
$27,000.00 per year in 2004 dollars.

Why do you pay $21,800, Dan? I thought the SECA (self-employed, which
is the highest rate) rate for SSI was 12.4% up to $90,000 net income
for 2005: $11,160. If you're an employee, it's half of that.


Damn, I tried to cancel the post. I screwed up the numbers. I meant to use
$10,900.00. But I'm a little tired.

Dan