"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message news:b_m1c.30694
SNIP

One other statistic I read recently but can't find the source is that the
ratio of national debt to GDP is about 30% at this time. Using the latest
CBO report for estimates, by 2050 the ratio will be about 200%
(debt:GDP)!!!! Basically, this says that we're running an unsustainable
model and have no choice but to increase the income:costs ratio
substationally. I think Greenspan's suggestion to cut social security and
increase the retirement age is by far the most sensible approach. If the
tax and spend Democrats get their way we'll be living in a socialist state
and have a 50% tax rate. God help us.

Mike

As a long time Republican who will for lack of a better choice vote
for GWB this fall, I must say I would rather have "tax and spend" than
the current "don't tax but still spend". The best would be a "tax
until it hurts and still don't spend until that hurts too" until ALL
the national debt was paid off. I detest the fact that my two little
grandsons (as well as hoped for other grandkids and their progeny)
will have to pay for things that my generation bought and consumed. We
have no pride or self respect in leaving debt to our kids, grandkids
and future generations. I detest that Bush is spending at a deficit
but the Democrats just gave me the choice of him or the most liberal
Democrat in the Senate. Where is Ross when we need him

Dave Hall

"David Hall" wrote in message
om...
"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
news:b_m1c.30694
SNIP

One other statistic I read recently but can't find the source is that
the
ratio of national debt to GDP is about 30% at this time. Using the
latest
CBO report for estimates, by 2050 the ratio will be about 200%
(debt:GDP)!!!! Basically, this says that we're running an unsustainable
model and have no choice but to increase the income:costs ratio
substationally. I think Greenspan's suggestion to cut social security
and
increase the retirement age is by far the most sensible approach. If
the
tax and spend Democrats get their way we'll be living in a socialist
state
and have a 50% tax rate. God help us.

Mike

As a long time Republican who will for lack of a better choice vote
for GWB this fall, I must say I would rather have "tax and spend" than
the current "don't tax but still spend". The best would be a "tax
until it hurts and still don't spend until that hurts too" until ALL
the national debt was paid off. I detest the fact that my two little
grandsons (as well as hoped for other grandkids and their progeny)
will have to pay for things that my generation bought and consumed. We
have no pride or self respect in leaving debt to our kids, grandkids
and future generations. I detest that Bush is spending at a deficit
but the Democrats just gave me the choice of him or the most liberal
Democrat in the Senate. Where is Ross when we need him

Dave Hall

I essentially agree with you. Something noone in the news has stated or
recognized is that thus far the Bush policies have been precisely what was
needed at the time and fully meet most economists expectations for what
should have been done during a recession. Deficit spending IS a good thing
in this situations and it is having exactly the effect that it should.
Increases in productivity are entirely ignored by the press, yet they keep
harping on the lack of job creation. I admit this is relevant, but it is
taken out of context in terms of overall economic growth. Anyway, I want
the debt to be eliminated as well, but I think it has to be addressed in
terms of the economy as a whole. Simply saying "no deficit spending" is
naive and not good economic policy. Protectionist trade policies are also
BAD for our economy as a whole. Sure, some people will lose jobs in the US,
but if you look at the overall benefits to our consumers (i.e. lower prices,
etc.) and the entire economic picture, free trade is a very good thing for
us. I have a 6-month old son, so the concerns you state are mine, too.
Anyway, my main point is you shouldn't detest Bush for his deficit spending
policies - they are appropriate and a good thing. His PROJECTIONS, however,
ARE scary. The weak dollar and dependence on foreign capital to prop up our
bond market is very troubling. If the Asian bond-holders cash out, we could
be heading for the worst recession since the early 80's with mortgage rates
in the teens, etc. Getting the debt down in these terms becomes a big
priority, one that it seems Bush needs to focus on a bit more very soon.
The thing about Bush is that he seems to do what his advisors suggest, and
I'm sure his economic team is aware of these factors and will make the
appropriate suggestions. But, you never know. But, as you said, there's no
way I'm voting for a two-faced "patriot" that has flames coming out of his
drawers.

Mike

"Mark"



Come on, Folks.

You know the only real way to 'fix' Social Security is to ... eliminate ....
those people receiving Social Security.


Green crackers. I smell green crackers !

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message

Well, you're free to make whatever point you want. The assertion that I
was
responding to was that if we just got Congress folks off of their
pension
and strictly onto SS, everything would be fine.

No one said that things would be "fine" ... the assertion was that if the
congress critters had to live by the same rules the rest of us do, that
the
much needed "fix" to SS would be more forthcoming.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Then I guess you're missing the point. Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their net
worth. So "making them play by our rules" isn't going to change anything.
There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected. Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
will change.
Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

todd

She inherited $500 when Heinz died.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

Kerry's wife is worth a lot more than that.


Really? I keep hearing great figures for her wealth, but so far I've seen
no
reliable stats on it.

I don't doubt she's got a lot of money, but "worth a lot more than that"
is one
helluva long ways from being a precise figure.

And I'd like to know where the Kerry $163,626,399 figure came from. That
is so
precise it has to be bull****.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Soylent Green?


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Mark"



Come on, Folks.

You know the only real way to 'fix' Social Security is to ... eliminate
.....
those people receiving Social Security.


Green crackers. I smell green crackers !

"todd" wrote in message

Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
net
worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much
better deal than you will get with SS..

There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to
pay the bill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" wrote in message
...


You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"Kevin" wrote in message
Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or
definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" wrote in message


You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04


Pick your own definition ... I've been putting the tern in quotes because it
was NOT a term I used in my original statement.

That said, what would it take for me to consider myself "wealthy"? How about
being able to live the lifestyle I am accustomed to, without having to work
.... that would be pretty damn close to my sense of being "wealthy", or close
enough.

You can be "rich" in a lot of things ... right now I wish we weren't so damn
rich in rain so I could spray some shellac!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Bill writes:


She inherited $500 when Heinz died.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

Kerry's wife is worth a lot more than that.


Really? I keep hearing great figures for her wealth, but so far I've seen
no
reliable stats on it.

I don't doubt she's got a lot of money, but "worth a lot more than that"
is one
helluva long ways from being a precise figure.

Well, that's precise enough, but you're a few hundred years late if you think
500 bucks is a lot of money.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

I would like to add a request for the definition of the "Working Family" to
go with that one.


"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or
definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" wrote in message
...


You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

LOL! $500 Million.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:


She inherited $500 when Heinz died.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

Kerry's wife is worth a lot more than that.


Really? I keep hearing great figures for her wealth, but so far I've
seen
no
reliable stats on it.

I don't doubt she's got a lot of money, but "worth a lot more than
that"
is one
helluva long ways from being a precise figure.

Well, that's precise enough, but you're a few hundred years late if you
think
500 bucks is a lot of money.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Working Family = any one making minimum wage.
Wealthy = any one making MORE than minimum wage.

That's the million dollar question!

I say flat tax and don't worry about defining wealthy.

A friend of ours thinks he's NOT wealthy at $55k. His idea of broke
(poor) is that he can't make the payment on his Escalade AND buy a $250k
house AND go clubbing every weekend. We believe his perception of wealthy is
skewed.

We (a family of four) think the same $55 we made last year is wealthy. And
evidently the government does too.

I grew up in a farm house with no glass in the windows up stairs and a
mentally disturbed chicken running around the yard. Now, I have the joy of
being able to buy groceries at will. Truly. I can't buy groceries without
thinking about a time when my free lunch at school was my nutrition for the
day. It took my wife 3 years to get me to buy chips and cookies from time to
time. I refused to. It was meats and veggies. I still don't eat half the
meals I cook, from habit.

It nice to point out from time to time that we have the wealthiest "poor"
people in the world.

I'd argued with a neighbor that said "Because of Bush, she couldn't afford
to buy her child clothes." I pointed out that evidently clothes we're the
worry when she got that fancy Weave, purchased that dime bag and put those
$500 rims on her Sequoia (Sp?). Her response was "Well my boyfriend bought
those". To which my response was "Sell them and buy clothes!". The rims are
still on the suv 6 months later.

It's all in perception.

Now if we're talking stinking ass rich, that's a different story. BUT, I
still think a flat tax is the only fair tax. The tax system as it stands now
punishes achievement and gives a false appearance of who is wealthy and who
is not.







"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or
definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" wrote in message
...


You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

todd wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Kevin" wrote in message

The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
going to change anything.

todd

In the case of Kerry, "wealthy" is a bit of an understatment!

BTW, to me....$500 IS a lot of money. Wish I had your paycheck.



"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:


She inherited $500 when Heinz died.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

Kerry's wife is worth a lot more than that.


Really? I keep hearing great figures for her wealth, but so far I've
seen
no
reliable stats on it.

I don't doubt she's got a lot of money, but "worth a lot more than
that"
is one
helluva long ways from being a precise figure.

Well, that's precise enough, but you're a few hundred years late if you
think
500 bucks is a lot of money.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Mark"



Come on, Folks.

You know the only real way to 'fix' Social Security is to ... eliminate ....
those people receiving Social Security.

Green crackers. I smell green crackers !

I thought they were green cookies.

Swingman wrote:

"todd" wrote in message

Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
net
worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much
better deal than you will get with SS..

There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to
pay the bill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS? Did you compare
figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
system like SS is.

Bill writes:

BTW, to me....$500 IS a lot of money. Wish I had your paycheck.


If you really want to trade, keep in mind that I lost my job a year ago.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

That's fine, too. I haven't had a paycheck in 5 years. I'm Mr. Mom.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

BTW, to me....$500 IS a lot of money. Wish I had your paycheck.


If you really want to trade, keep in mind that I lost my job a year ago.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS?

Read my previouse message with the statistics from the Congressional Reseach
Office, then tell me it is NOT a "better deal"

Did you compare
figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
system like SS is.

Congress critters got BOTH CSRS and SS.

Again, quoting the CRO:

1. Full coverage under SS and CSRS 2. The "CSRS Offset" plan, which includes
both CSRS and SS, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by SS
contributions and benefits.

3. FERS plus SS

4. SS alone

"All members pay SS payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the SS taxable wage base
of ($84,900 in 2002). Members covered by FERS pay 1.3% of full salary to the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. [Congress kicks in 11% of the
Members' salary as its contribution]. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay
1.8% of the first $84,900 of salary and 8.0% of salary above this amount
into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

In article , GeorgeC-
says...

I don't know either, but it doesn't make any difference. In 2035 less
than 2 people will be working support one retired person. That isn't
going to result in a very good retirement no matter how you try to
fund it.

OK, my last try. All of those assumptions about the number of
payers vs the number of payees are ALREADY IN the governments
estimates. The question was about one number in their
estimating formula that was questioned by an economics
professor.

I will post no more on this subject. You may all be good
woodworkers, but you either don't understand English, you're
just trolling, or you're all preprogrammed to spout the drivel
of one side or the other when any trigger word is uttered.
Sheesh!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

You may all be good
woodworkers snip

In the final analysis, that is ALL that matters.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:08:22 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

I was afraid this would happen. Many responses and not one
addressed the question I asked. Are the percentages quoted
correct?

When I see a man going down the wrong road, I don't call him an
asshole for trying to go that way.

I just talk to him about the road he should be on.


Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message

Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

Just because I'm not responding to whatever point you are, doesn't mean I've
missed the one I'm referring to.

Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major
source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
net
worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a
much
better deal than you will get with SS..

Fine. You show me the stats on the net worth of congress people when they
leave office and then we'll talk. And I never said they wouldn't be happy
to get it. I'd be happy if you gave me $1000, but it represents a very
small portion of my net worth. If I didn't get it, it wouldn't change my
lifestyle.

There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then
it
will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

BS. There hasn't been an outcry to change SS in the past 40 years because
the seasoned citizens are the most disciplined voting group in the country.
You go talking about making sweeping changes to SS as an elected
representative and see where that gets you. You tell me when there was a
major voter push to modify SS in a substantial way that would bring the cost
of the program under control.

Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old
and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20
years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my
other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have
to
pay the bill.

Well, I figure about $100,000 has been put in on my behalf so far, so I'll
charge my emergency room stay to that. And I tell you what...don't worry
about me. Maybe you need a nanny state, but I don't.

todd

"todd" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in message


"todd" wrote in message

Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

Just because I'm not responding to whatever point you are, doesn't mean
I've
missed the one I'm referring to.

LOL ... say what?

Simply try addressing the point in the thread that _you_ originally jumped
in to.

Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major
source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of
their
net
worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a
much
better deal than you will get with SS..

Fine. You show me the stats on the net worth of congress people when they
leave office and then we'll talk.

Don't look now, but _you_ brought up "net worth" of congressmen, _you_ back
up what you brought up.

There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then
it
will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make
them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

BS. There hasn't been an outcry to change SS in the past 40 years because
the seasoned citizens are the most disciplined voting group in the
country.
You go talking about making sweeping changes to SS as an elected
representative and see where that gets you. You tell me when there was a
major voter push to modify SS in a substantial way that would bring the
cost
of the program under control.

You just missed it, dude ... you were obviously too young to have noticed.
There has been an outcry about the SS fund for years and it has been an
issue in almost every local campaign for congress since I was in High School
.... I even debated it in HS in 1961 ... before you were born.
..
Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old
and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20
years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is
that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my
other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will
have
to
pay the bill.

Well, I figure about $100,000 has been put in on my behalf so far, so I'll
charge my emergency room stay to that. And I tell you what...don't worry
about me. Maybe you need a nanny state, but I don't.

With an attitude like that, live long enough and you _will_ get one.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
If I am not mistaken, the average life expectancy was 62 when the original
eligibility was set at 65. I could be wrong, though.

The average life expectancy is not the average age that a person over 50
dies at. It is an average age that people live overall, which includes death
of childhood diseases. If you think of it an average age of death would have
to include a whole bunch of people of all ages (down to newborns) to come up
with an average. These children did not contribute to the S/S.

People have always lived long lives if they survived childhood, childbirth
or workplace accidents. This brings to mind a headstone I saw in my town.
The person was born in 1799 and died in 1901 -- 101 years old. A good old
life, especially for the age, imagine the person lived through the entire
19th century!


--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Charlie Self"
Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't
steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other
savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all
the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
people, it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
years.
People are living much longer these days.

"todd" wrote in message
...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message


There was a MAJOR revision of the Social Security Act in the mid-80's.
Indexing of earnings, inclusion of federal employees under coverage, gradual
increase of the retirement age from 65 to 67, reduction of child's benefits
from 21 to18........ it was extensive. It was believed then that the
revisions would carry the Act through 2010 to 2040 depending on a multitude
of factors, mostly to do with the performance of the economy and population
demographics.

Actually, IMHO, those old estimates proved reasonable accurate. However,
2010 is now six years, away. Currently, the estimates are that somewhere
between 2010 and 2013, the monthly SSA expediture will, for the first time,
ever, exceed the monthly income. Somewhere around 2030, the "Trust Fund"
will be completely empty.

The monies collected in FICA taxes/contributions has ALWAYS gone directly
into the US Treasury. It's not like they were put into a bank, somewhere.
The collected funds were spent to pay for programs of the Federal
government. (The Social Security Administration does not collect FICA, the
IRS does. SSA operates on Congressional approved appropriations just like
every other federal agency).

The Trust Fund(s), (there's a couple of them), are accounting fictions to
keep track of the FICA taxes/contributions separate from common taxes. And
they always have been.

Analogy. You, and your family, agree to a retirement plan. You have ten
kids. Ten percent of everyone's earnings are sent to a designated to a
"trust" fund, except the monies are really put into a general household
account. When you reach retirement age, you start collecting money from the
"trust" fund, except it really comes from the general household account.
However, by now, your ten kids have a total of 100 grandkids who are
contributing to the "trust fund", too, so you're withdrawals are not
noticeable. Your 100 grandkids, produce ten kids each and contribution
grows dramatically as 1000 great-grandkids add their contributions to the
"trust fund". However, the 1000 great-grandkids, instead of ten kids each,
only have three kids each. Now those three thousand great-great grandkids
are forced to support well over a thousand retired relatives.

Did that help explain the problems?

The performance of the economy as a whole isn't as important as the sheer
number of people paying into the system. Because of the caps on covered
earnings, few people paying ever larger contributions isn't the same as many
people paying smaller contributions.

The SS Act, is like many federal programs, a monsterous glob. For instance,
from the original act with a single beneficiary type...

A- Covered wage earner
B- Spouse of a covered wage earner
C- Child of a covered wage earner
D-Widow of a covered wage earner
F-Parent/Grandparent of a covered wage earner
HA-Disable covered wage earner
DAC- Disabled "adult" child of a covered wage earner
W-Disabled widow of a covered wage earner
J-Special Payment and coverage provisions

"Wage earner" is a traditional term. The modern term is "beneficiary"
Disability payments used to constitute about 1/2 of the monthly SSA
disbursment. With the aging "baby boomers", I expect that percentage will
decrease and I have no idea what it is currently. However, I do know that
18 months seems to be the disability "magic number" The people that have
drawn disability for 18 months and ever get back to work, drops
dramatically.

BTW, originally, the Act was specifically targeted for wage earners. Self
employed people were not covered. Most, if not all state and federal people
were not covered. Over the decades, practically every working (and some
non-working) people have been covered by the Act. (See vow-of-poverty cases
and the concept of wages-in-kind that extended coverage to various religious
orders)

The original intention of the Act was to provide ADDITIONAL funding to lower
end wage earners to make their retirements, if not confortable, at least
bearable. That's why, all the computations are heavily weighted so that the
lower end wage earner receiveds proportionally a greater return on
contributions than the higher wage earners. High end earners, really have a
poor "return on investment", at least compared to lower income earners.
(The benefit computations are convoluted as hell, but basically, the higher
a beneficiary's "average monthy wage" over their working life, the lower the
percentage of the wage they are likely to collect in monthly benefits. Let's
say your Average Monthly Wage, was was 1000 dollars. (Indexed, adjusted
for inflation, yada, yada, yada). The compution has "bend" points. You
might receive 75% of the first 500 dollars of an "average monthly wage",
then 60% of an AMW between 500 and 750 dollars, and the 40% of anything over
750 dollars in AMW.

Modern private pension plans, normally incorporate and anticipate a SS
covered entitlement as part of the plan. In other words, the SS Act is so
interwoven in the fabric of America, that ANY adjustments, corrections,
reforms have to be very carefully considered, least dire and completely
unintentional consequences result.

As a knee-jerk conservative, I have a natural inclination towards
privatization of Social Secuity...UNTIL one considers the mechanics of such
a process. Somewhere along the line, BILLIONS of dollars in investment
funds PER MONTH, would end up under the directions of a relatively few
bureaucrats/investment counselers. The potentional for corruption
internally, and scams externally, will be immense.

My predictions, and IMHO, they are not as wild as they might seem at first
glance....are

SS benfits will be "means tested". If you a lottery winner, or a successful
and frugal wage earner, you'll never collect a dime in SS benefits.

The covered retirment age will (again) be raised, probably ending up,
somewhere around 71 or 72.

The reductions assessed for "early retirment" will be increased.

Some classes of beneficiaries (dependent grandparents????) will be
restricted and eventually de-entitled. (De-entitled?? Is there such a
word?)

Cost-of-living formulas, (that currently determine rate increases every
year) will be re-computed to reflect proportionally smaller increases (Such
things as new-housing costs will be excluded from the formula, under the
belief that very few 72 year old people buy new houses.)
Some portion of an individual's (probably less than 10%) will be
"privatized" via 401K-type plans. NOTE: While taxes maybe be delayed,
eventually the government WILL collect taxes on those "earnings".

Full-blown, stay at home and never-lift-a-finger retirements, are already
decreasing as a percentage of the total population. The trend to part-time
and reduced income work for seniors, will continue to increase.

And for a really big prediction.
How many people will be able to guess where I worked for 30 years? Grin

James...
BTW, Civil Service Retirements, Veteran's Retirements (etc) are all in the
same catagory.

"James" wrote in message

The monies collected in FICA taxes/contributions has ALWAYS gone directly
into the US Treasury. It's not like they were put into a bank, somewhere.
The collected funds were spent to pay for programs of the Federal
government. (The Social Security Administration does not collect FICA,
the
IRS does. SSA operates on Congressional approved appropriations just like
every other federal agency).

We debated this very practice 42 years ago, in High School government class.


Did that help explain the problems?

Just like most forms of "insurance", a merry-go-round you can't stop, or get
off of.

As a knee-jerk conservative, I have a natural inclination towards
privatization of Social Secuity...UNTIL one considers the mechanics of
such
a process. Somewhere along the line, BILLIONS of dollars in investment
funds PER MONTH, would end up under the directions of a relatively few
bureaucrats/investment counselers. The potentional for corruption
internally, and scams externally, will be immense.

I am with you 100% on all the above. My youngest daughter's college fund,
despite careful and professional attention, lost almost 70% of its value in
the last four years, just as she needed it ... surprise, surprise!

My predictions, and IMHO, they are not as wild as they might seem at first
glance....are

SS benfits will be "means tested". If you a lottery winner, or a
successful
and frugal wage earner, you'll never collect a dime in SS benefits.

The covered retirment age will (again) be raised, probably ending up,
somewhere around 71 or 72.

The reductions assessed for "early retirment" will be increased.

Some classes of beneficiaries (dependent grandparents????) will be
restricted and eventually de-entitled. (De-entitled?? Is there such a
word?)

Cost-of-living formulas, (that currently determine rate increases every
year) will be re-computed to reflect proportionally smaller increases
(Such
things as new-housing costs will be excluded from the formula, under the
belief that very few 72 year old people buy new houses.)
Some portion of an individual's (probably less than 10%) will be
"privatized" via 401K-type plans. NOTE: While taxes maybe be delayed,
eventually the government WILL collect taxes on those "earnings".

Full-blown, stay at home and never-lift-a-finger retirements, are already
decreasing as a percentage of the total population. The trend to
part-time
and reduced income work for seniors, will continue to increase.

None of which will likely apply to congress critters, Todd.

Having been self-employed my entire life, I will continue to "work" until I
drop ... but I would do it anyway because my work is, and always has been,
things that I take a passionate interest in.

And for a really big prediction.
How many people will be able to guess where I worked for 30 years? Grin

James...
BTW, Civil Service Retirements, Veteran's Retirements (etc) are all in the
same catagory.

Excellent post! Thank you!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

In article ,
says...
Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

That's simple: "wealthy" is someone who has more than you do (when
the term is being uttered by a politician to "regular folks"). The
"rich" are those who make more than you do. Of course this means that
anybody who makes more than you do, or has more than you do should be
taxed heavily in order to make sure that they eventually are equal to
you -- regardless of how hard they have worked. Of course this doesn't
apply to the person on the podium who more than likely makes their
definition of "rich" (often now referred to as someone making more than
$100k per year) look like the poor house. Thus you have one candidate
who made money the old fashioned way (he married it) and another who is
a multi-hundred millionaire by nature of sueing for the "oppressed" and
keeping 60% of their winnings telling those who make more than $100k how
they should suck it up and "pay their fair share".


So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" wrote in message
...


You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Al Reid" wrote in message

There are 40 of 100 US Senators who are Millionaires.

There's 535 members of congress ...26% are millionaires. While that is
certainly a disproportionate percentage compared to the general
population,
it is not "most", as has been stated as fact.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

OK, Swingman, let's start back here. Since you're so fond of asking for
references for statistics, what is your source for the above? Keep in mind
that the 40 senators being millionaires is a minimum number. Because of the
way the numbers are reported, the actual net worth could be understated
considerably. Take Hillary Clinton, for example. Guess what, she didn't
make the list of the 40 senators who are millionaires. Her net worth is
estimated to be between $352,000 and $3.8 million. Take a guess which
number is used as the basis of determining whether or not she's a
millionaire. I'll be damned if I can find a link to the raw data on all the
senators, but keep the following in mind. 1) The net worth is based on data
provided by the congress folks themselves and 2) The number used as the
basis could be low by a factor of at least 10.

todd

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article ,
says...
Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

That's simple: "wealthy" is someone who has more than you do (when
the term is being uttered by a politician to "regular folks"). The
"rich" are those who make more than you do.

That's pretty much it. You can be rich but you accumulate wealth. Rich
people have a high income and tend to spend it, but wealthy people may spend
a lot, but have assets such as real estate, bank deposits, large stock
portfolios.
Ed

Swingman wrote:

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS?

Read my previouse message with the statistics from the Congressional Reseach
Office, then tell me it is NOT a "better deal"

Did you compare
figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
system like SS is.

Congress critters got BOTH CSRS and SS.

Again, quoting the CRO:

1. Full coverage under SS and CSRS 2. The "CSRS Offset" plan, which includes
both CSRS and SS, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by SS
contributions and benefits.

3. FERS plus SS

4. SS alone

"All members pay SS payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the SS taxable wage base
of ($84,900 in 2002). Members covered by FERS pay 1.3% of full salary to the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. [Congress kicks in 11% of the
Members' salary as its contribution]. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay
1.8% of the first $84,900 of salary and 8.0% of salary above this amount
into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Some do and some don't. It's not simple. CSRS is just about over
since there was a switch to FERS in 1984. Since the retirement change
is still in transition it get pretty complicated but all congressmen
pay Social Security payroll tax regardless of the retirment plan,i.e.,
they have 6.2 percent of pay up to 87,900 (2004 maximum)deducted from
wages and 1.45 percent deducted for medicare. Since CSRS is 8 percent,
if they have CSRS they end up having 14.2 percent deducted for the
first $87,900 and 8% on salary above 87,900. That's a lot.

The other percents you stated are correct. Which means that all
members are paying at least 1.3 percent more than regular ss for the
first 87,900 plus above 87,900 they 8 percent if CSRS offset and 1.3
percent if FERS. FERS also has a 402 plan where the first 5 percent
is matched; CSRS also has a 402 but no employer matching.

The numbers you gave are mostly for CSRS retirements, and those
Congressmen were contributing a lot of money. The average guy would
really scream if he had to contribute 15.65% of his salary; 6.2% for
SS, 8% for CSRS, 1.45% for medicare.

The law limits retirements to 80 percent of the high 3 (that's for
people that think Congressmen retire at their last salary). This
confusion is increase when the term "full retirement" is used. It
means that a percon retired at the age and with the number of years
served to qualify for the full amount calculated for the number of
years served. If a person doesn't meet that qualification then they
get a deferred retirement (wait till they are older before the pension
starts), or a reduced pension, or both a deferred and reduced pension.

The best site I've seen on this subject is:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30631.pdf

And yeah, Congressmen and Judges seem to get a pretty good deal, a lot
better than the regular federal workers.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:09:11 +0000, Mark wrote:


What worked for the Swiss was and is their being the bankers for the world.



Ahhh, the old change the subject ploy when you can't argue with the truth.



Sorry, I was replying to the effectiveness of the Swiss Army.

What did you think I was replying to?



--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Swingman responds:

charge my emergency room stay to that. And I tell you what...don't worry
about me. Maybe you need a nanny state, but I don't.

With an attitude like that, live long enough and you _will_ get one.


Yeah. Figure 36 years old, never been hurt, enver been ill, never been out of
work. So far, so good. But...bet on things changing as the years add up. He
doesn't think so, though.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Mark & Juanita writes:

eir
definition of "rich" (often now referred to as someone making more than
$100k per year)

$100K doesn't make it. Maybe twice or three times that for a minimum of a
decade?
hus you have one candidate
who made money the old fashioned way (he married it) and another who is
a multi-hundred millionaire by nature of sueing for the "oppressed" and
keeping 60% of their winnings telling those who make more than $100k how
they should suck it up and "pay their fair share".

And the final candidate (of realistic candidates) also made his bucks the
old-fashioned way: he inherited it.

BTW, I think most tort attorneys get to keep about 35-50%, not 60%. Bad enough
that the exaggeration seems unnecessary.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

George Cawthon writes:

The average guy would
really scream if he had to contribute 15.65% of his salary; 6.2% for
SS, 8% for CSRS, 1.45% for medicare.

Try self-employment. 15.3% for SS/medicare.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

If anyone is interested. Here a decent link to info on tort reform.

http://www.atrafoundation.org/tort_facts.html


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita writes:

eir
definition of "rich" (often now referred to as someone making more than
$100k per year)

$100K doesn't make it. Maybe twice or three times that for a minimum of a
decade?
hus you have one candidate
who made money the old fashioned way (he married it) and another who is
a multi-hundred millionaire by nature of sueing for the "oppressed" and
keeping 60% of their winnings telling those who make more than $100k how
they should suck it up and "pay their fair share".

And the final candidate (of realistic candidates) also made his bucks the
old-fashioned way: he inherited it.

BTW, I think most tort attorneys get to keep about 35-50%, not 60%. Bad
enough
that the exaggeration seems unnecessary.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

I'd rather have that 15% go into my 401k.


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
George Cawthon writes:

The average guy would
really scream if he had to contribute 15.65% of his salary; 6.2% for
SS, 8% for CSRS, 1.45% for medicare.

Try self-employment. 15.3% for SS/medicare.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Sure will, or at least will look for the answer but please be specific in
your question.
Are you asking:
1. what estimated rate of growth is the SS fund based on
2. what is the actual growth rate?
3. whether the econ prof is blowing wind up your skirt with his opinion that
the crisis is manufatured by investment fund managers who'd love to get
their hands on the re-directed funds?


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article , GeorgeC-
says...

I don't know either, but it doesn't make any difference. In 2035 less
than 2 people will be working support one retired person. That isn't
going to result in a very good retirement no matter how you try to
fund it.

OK, my last try. All of those assumptions about the number of
payers vs the number of payees are ALREADY IN the governments
estimates. The question was about one number in their
estimating formula that was questioned by an economics
professor.

I will post no more on this subject. You may all be good
woodworkers, but you either don't understand English, you're
just trolling, or you're all preprogrammed to spout the drivel
of one side or the other when any trigger word is uttered.
Sheesh!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
George Cawthon writes:

The average guy would
really scream if he had to contribute 15.65% of his salary; 6.2% for
SS, 8% for CSRS, 1.45% for medicare.

Try self-employment. 15.3% for SS/medicare.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Everyone pays 15.3% FICA tax. It's just that they hide that fact from
those of us who collect paychecks by saying it is an "Employer" tax.
They can't hide it from the self employed who are both the "employer"
and the "employee".

Dave Hall