C
Cut-Throat
Guest
nm
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
And my opinion is that Jimmy Carter is too dumb to be
a fisherman
JG
And my opinion is that Jimmy Carter is too dumb to be
a fisherman
JG
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Way to go, Cut my man. If this works out right, I'll know who to thank.
Mikey
Way to go, Cut my man. If this works out right, I'll know who to thank.
Mikey
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
I remember when I was a kid then Pres Carter, came to Hiawassee Ga for a fishing trip at his cousin Don's farm. All the school kids went out to the pasture where his helicopter was going to land and watched him arrive. I still have the picture of us standing in front of his chopper once he left. He gave the typical wave and was off in the Jeep.
I think he did pretty good fishing. Of course the Ga Dept of Fish and Game stocked that section of the river real good just before he arrived
JDW
And my opinion is that Jimmy Carter is too dumb to be
a fisherman
JG
I remember when I was a kid then Pres Carter, came to Hiawassee Ga for a fishing trip at his cousin Don's farm. All the school kids went out to the pasture where his helicopter was going to land and watched him arrive. I still have the picture of us standing in front of his chopper once he left. He gave the typical wave and was off in the Jeep.
I think he did pretty good fishing. Of course the Ga Dept of Fish and Game stocked that section of the river real good just before he arrived
JDW
gratefuled
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 178
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
You gotta like Jimmy Carter, politics or no. Sibling of a bootlegger, luster after women, swinger of a mean hammer, and scourge of sassy rabbits.
My kinda country boy.
Ed
You gotta like Jimmy Carter, politics or no. Sibling of a bootlegger, luster after women, swinger of a mean hammer, and scourge of sassy rabbits.
My kinda country boy.
Ed
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
"Scourge of sassy rabbits"? Sounds like Elmer Fudd
Hey, I wonder what a can of Billy Beer is worth on eBay?
JG
"Scourge of sassy rabbits"? Sounds like Elmer Fudd
Hey, I wonder what a can of Billy Beer is worth on eBay?
JG
Berkshire_Bull
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 174
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Cut-Throat, you must live near Hastings where my girlfriend is from. A good friend of mine is a nephew of Ron Kind, our congressmen from the third district of WI. He's a Democrat but a nice guy nonetheless. That certainly has its perks, such as when she got to go to the airport with Ron to meet with Kerry at 7 PM on election night and sit in on a meeting before he got onto his plane. She called me afterwards to say that the meeting was basically a bunch of back slapping since "Kerry was going to win because of the exit polls." I would have loved to have a picture of her face once the good people of Ohio wiped that smile off her face.
Cut-Throat, you must live near Hastings where my girlfriend is from. A good friend of mine is a nephew of Ron Kind, our congressmen from the third district of WI. He's a Democrat but a nice guy nonetheless. That certainly has its perks, such as when she got to go to the airport with Ron to meet with Kerry at 7 PM on election night and sit in on a meeting before he got onto his plane. She called me afterwards to say that the meeting was basically a bunch of back slapping since "Kerry was going to win because of the exit polls." I would have loved to have a picture of her face once the good people of Ohio wiped that smile off her face.
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
I am completely against private accounts because it is clear from the right-wing think-tank white papers that the goal of this is to eliminate social security -- not to save it. But the best solution should require everyone to pay a little. That means that benefits (for everyone) need to be cut -- either through more aggressive taxes or reduced benefits. Increased taxation through removal of the cap also seems like a no-brainer.
Yeah. . . preservation of any group's benefits strikes me as unfair too.
I am completely against private accounts because it is clear from the right-wing think-tank white papers that the goal of this is to eliminate social security -- not to save it. But the best solution should require everyone to pay a little. That means that benefits (for everyone) need to be cut -- either through more aggressive taxes or reduced benefits. Increased taxation through removal of the cap also seems like a no-brainer.
OP
OP
Cut-Throat
Guest
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
That's exactly what was done in 1983 to save Social Security when I was working.
I am only in favor of a Tax increase that would eliminate the Current Cap. Not increasing taxes for those under $100K. Reducing benefits by increasing the retirmement age to match the longevity tables. Not actually reducing benefits once you start collecting.
Let's hear your solution. - I'm listening :
That's exactly what was done in 1983 to save Social Security when I was working.
I am only in favor of a Tax increase that would eliminate the Current Cap. Not increasing taxes for those under $100K. Reducing benefits by increasing the retirmement age to match the longevity tables. Not actually reducing benefits once you start collecting.
Let's hear your solution. - I'm listening :
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Hello C-T . I'm with you on removing the cap, even though that could be viewed as a "tax on the rich" which I usually would oppose strongly. However, even though
I am reaching geezer status, raising the retirement
age really bothers me, even with a phased in approach.
It won't impact me. I just don't like way it smells.
OTOH, as you all know most anything the gov. comes up with has to pass the "smell" test with me.
JG
Hello C-T . I'm with you on removing the cap, even though that could be viewed as a "tax on the rich" which I usually would oppose strongly. However, even though
I am reaching geezer status, raising the retirement
age really bothers me, even with a phased in approach.
It won't impact me. I just don't like way it smells.
OTOH, as you all know most anything the gov. comes up with has to pass the "smell" test with me.
JG
unclemick
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
I agree
Plus eliminating any remaining reductions in SS while working - so the 'poor' Boomers can both draw some and pay some taxes at the same time.
The most radical - I would like to see SS given quasi independance on the order of the Fed Reserve and be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, BOTH foreign and domestic.
I also believe it's Medicare - not SS that's the problem.
SS is the most onerous and by far the biggest tax almost everybody in my neigborhood pays - way ahead of all other taxes combined, including high sales taxes.
I agree
Plus eliminating any remaining reductions in SS while working - so the 'poor' Boomers can both draw some and pay some taxes at the same time.
The most radical - I would like to see SS given quasi independance on the order of the Fed Reserve and be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, BOTH foreign and domestic.
I also believe it's Medicare - not SS that's the problem.
SS is the most onerous and by far the biggest tax almost everybody in my neigborhood pays - way ahead of all other taxes combined, including high sales taxes.
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Eliminate the pointless farm price support program, and put that money in international index funds to pay retirees. Set up a separate agency whose only mandate is to preserve the trust fund so Congress cannot steal it again. No tax increases, no benefit cuts. We would probably wind up with a benefit raise.
Eliminate the pointless farm price support program, and put that money in international index funds to pay retirees. Set up a separate agency whose only mandate is to preserve the trust fund so Congress cannot steal it again. No tax increases, no benefit cuts. We would probably wind up with a benefit raise.
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Galveston, oh Galveston, I hear that your plan is working. Wonder why our plan can't be like yours. In Galveston.... In Galveston.
Sung to tune of Galveston by Glen Campbell.
All together now, 1, 2, 3... Galveston....
Galveston, oh Galveston, I hear that your plan is working. Wonder why our plan can't be like yours. In Galveston.... In Galveston.
Sung to tune of Galveston by Glen Campbell.
All together now, 1, 2, 3... Galveston....
Age-adjusted SS eligibility
But if SS eligibility was adjusted to to 1935's average life expectancy, then today's eligibility age would be in our early-mid 80s.
I wonder who makes hedonic adjustments to the average life expectancy?
Disclaimer-- I've calculated my SS benefit (in today's $$) at age 62 to be about $8-9K/year. So I can be accused of apathy.
But if SS eligibility was adjusted to to 1935's average life expectancy, then today's eligibility age would be in our early-mid 80s.
I wonder who makes hedonic adjustments to the average life expectancy?
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Hey, I'm not going to be getting ~$12k a year!!!
My wife and I refer to that as the "lobster every other night option" should SS actually occur.
I would recommend neither counting, nor planning on it.
Solution to the problem? Easy. The feds have to pay back all of the money they've "borrowed" from the program. They arent allowed to "borrow" from it ever again. Social security thats been promised to people who have pretty much planned their retirement around it (those over ~30) get the full benefits paid out first, then the feds get to buy other crap with whatevers left over. You're under 30, plan your own damn retirement.
Hey, I'm not going to be getting ~$12k a year!!!
My wife and I refer to that as the "lobster every other night option" should SS actually occur.
I would recommend neither counting, nor planning on it.
Solution to the problem? Easy. The feds have to pay back all of the money they've "borrowed" from the program. They arent allowed to "borrow" from it ever again. Social security thats been promised to people who have pretty much planned their retirement around it (those over ~30) get the full benefits paid out first, then the feds get to buy other crap with whatevers left over. You're under 30, plan your own damn retirement.
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
I understand that life expectancy increases since 1935 are primarily due to less babies and young people dying. For those who live to age 65, life expectancy only has increased a small amount since the early 1900s.
I understand that life expectancy increases since 1935 are primarily due to less babies and young people dying. For those who live to age 65, life expectancy only has increased a small amount since the early 1900s.
OP
OP
Cut-Throat
Guest
Re: Age-adjusted SS eligibility
I've got to disagree with you here Nords!
If you compare life expectancy at age 60 in 1935 with someone age 60 today, you only get about 5 year gain. From age 75 in 1935 to about age 80 today. Even if you look at a 40 year old worker in 1935 vs. a 40 year old today. The 40 year old of today(In their big paying years of SS) only has about a 6 or 7 year longer lifespan than the one in 1935.
Most of the life expectancy gains are measured at birth. The folks that keep telling us that we are going to live well over 100 soon are just plain wrong!
See the following table
I've got to disagree with you here Nords!
If you compare life expectancy at age 60 in 1935 with someone age 60 today, you only get about 5 year gain. From age 75 in 1935 to about age 80 today. Even if you look at a 40 year old worker in 1935 vs. a 40 year old today. The 40 year old of today(In their big paying years of SS) only has about a 6 or 7 year longer lifespan than the one in 1935.
Most of the life expectancy gains are measured at birth. The folks that keep telling us that we are going to live well over 100 soon are just plain wrong!
See the following table
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Weeeeellll...as with many things, we cant predict the future and the past may or may not be a good predictor.
Past improvements in longevity have in fact been linked closely with the elimination of childhood diseases and better healthcare/nutrition in the early years.
A whole lot of pretty smart people think that work done in the areas of DNA study and nanotechnology could easily increase human lifespans by up to 10 or 20 years within the next 3 decades.
I guess we'll know for sure in 20-30 years...
Weeeeellll...as with many things, we cant predict the future and the past may or may not be a good predictor.
Past improvements in longevity have in fact been linked closely with the elimination of childhood diseases and better healthcare/nutrition in the early years.
A whole lot of pretty smart people think that work done in the areas of DNA study and nanotechnology could easily increase human lifespans by up to 10 or 20 years within the next 3 decades.
I guess we'll know for sure in 20-30 years...
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: Age-adjusted SS eligibility
Although this number has increased a bit since 1935, the change is nowhere near as dramatic as the increase in average life expectancy at birth. In 1935 we had no antibiotics, and many rural people had no adequate sanitation. (And there were still a lot of rural people.) Most of the increase in average life expectancy since then comes from saving people who prior to antibiotics would have died in childhood or early adulthood, from various diarrheal diseases, whooping cough, TB etc. These people not only would not have received any benefits, they also would not have paid much in SS tax, even if we had the same SS tax schedule that we have today.
This is an important point, that makes the idea of age 65 = age 80 today very misleading.
Mikey
The relevant figure is not average life expectancy, but years remaining once one has reached age 65.
Although this number has increased a bit since 1935, the change is nowhere near as dramatic as the increase in average life expectancy at birth. In 1935 we had no antibiotics, and many rural people had no adequate sanitation. (And there were still a lot of rural people.) Most of the increase in average life expectancy since then comes from saving people who prior to antibiotics would have died in childhood or early adulthood, from various diarrheal diseases, whooping cough, TB etc. These people not only would not have received any benefits, they also would not have paid much in SS tax, even if we had the same SS tax schedule that we have today.
This is an important point, that makes the idea of age 65 = age 80 today very misleading.
Mikey
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
I should have read a bit deeper into this thread. I see my above point has been pretty well covered.
I also would like to say that that Burns at Dallas Morning News with his "generational transfer" BS is all wet. The huge generational transfer is from older savers to younger borrowers. That is made possible by the largesse of Uncle Alan keeping real interest rates negative, combined with astoundingly loose mortgage underwriting.
I feel Burns is either stupid or dishonest or a bit of both.
mikey
I should have read a bit deeper into this thread. I see my above point has been pretty well covered.
I also would like to say that that Burns at Dallas Morning News with his "generational transfer" BS is all wet. The huge generational transfer is from older savers to younger borrowers. That is made possible by the largesse of Uncle Alan keeping real interest rates negative, combined with astoundingly loose mortgage underwriting.
I feel Burns is either stupid or dishonest or a bit of both.
mikey
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Mikey, with all respect, Burns is a MIT graduate.
He has been writing a treasure trove of good
personal finance advice for a looong time. Like
all of us, he may be wrong sometimes ,,,, but he
is neither crooked nor stupid.
The generational accounting ideas come from the
co-author of their book "The Coming Generational
Storm" name of Kirtlikof (or some-such). He is an
economist of high regard ..... also a MIT grad.
The authors pass around blame to both parties
with a tad more scorn for Bush and the Republicans
so I don't think they have a hidden political agenda.
It is a great read and a real wake-up call.
Cheers,
Charlie
Mikey, with all respect, Burns is a MIT graduate.
He has been writing a treasure trove of good
personal finance advice for a looong time. Like
all of us, he may be wrong sometimes ,,,, but he
is neither crooked nor stupid.
The generational accounting ideas come from the
co-author of their book "The Coming Generational
Storm" name of Kirtlikof (or some-such). He is an
economist of high regard ..... also a MIT grad.
The authors pass around blame to both parties
with a tad more scorn for Bush and the Republicans
so I don't think they have a hidden political agenda.
It is a great read and a real wake-up call.
Cheers,
Charlie
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
GD-ER,
I liked your comment of putting the tax on SS income
back into the "trust fund", but I would like it even
more if there were NO tax on SS income. That is an
unfair tax on tax and almost as regressive as the
payroll tax. For example, I had $15,640 of taxable
income that included $7082 SS income. My tax bill
was $1294 on that amount, but it would have been
about $858 if SS were not taxed. The extra $436
tax on $7082 SS income is a 61.7% marginal tax rate.
Cheers,
Charlie
GD-ER,
I liked your comment of putting the tax on SS income
back into the "trust fund", but I would like it even
more if there were NO tax on SS income. That is an
unfair tax on tax and almost as regressive as the
payroll tax. For example, I had $15,640 of taxable
income that included $7082 SS income. My tax bill
was $1294 on that amount, but it would have been
about $858 if SS were not taxed. The extra $436
tax on $7082 SS income is a 61.7% marginal tax rate.
Cheers,
Charlie
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur
Hello Charlie. I have become quite fond of paying no income taxes at all. I will be using my maximum
creative powers to insure this continues just as long as
possible.. This will be a real test, but as usual I expect I will come up with something.
JG
Hello Charlie. I have become quite fond of paying no income taxes at all. I will be using my maximum
creative powers to insure this continues just as long as
possible.. This will be a real test, but as usual I expect I will come up with something.
JG
