Retirement Turns Into a Rest Stop
- Thread starter sgeeeee
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Everyone is entilted to discuss their opinion of the subject, without rancor, I hope. Let's all try to refrain from slaimming other's perceived personal short-comings and continue to just address the issues brought up.
newellcr
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 224
Hello Folks,
JVW seemed to see a post where someone mentioned not having a safety net. I must have missed that one. The discussion by the rest of us has been about the degree of safety net as far as I can tell.
Just to review
- In spite of the arguing, there seems to be a lot of agreeing about a safety net other than on the who should pay for it part of the equation. The folks deemed correct by the peanut gallery seem to prefer having government taxes fund a bigger safety net. The wrong, evil, and somehow unknowing folks suggest that society has the capability to fund a bigger safety net through charity organizations. The correct folks think that a bigger safety net would be expensive and therefore needs to be funded by the government (because that's how government promotes the general welfare) and that the rich can shoulder the burden because they are, well, rich after all. Hyper delivers a(nother) searing evaluation of the religious hypocritical right (is this a double redundant statement in your eyes Hyper?) that ignores his howling about paying taxes on future earnings based on employment as an alien in the society. And John gets an "A" in spelling...
I now return you to your regularly scheduled rants.
Kind Regards,
Chris
PS. Guest shows up before I can hit the post button. Guest, you seem to have some sense. Would you please register and invest your calm character into this board?
Thanks.
JVW seemed to see a post where someone mentioned not having a safety net. I must have missed that one. The discussion by the rest of us has been about the degree of safety net as far as I can tell.
Just to review
- In spite of the arguing, there seems to be a lot of agreeing about a safety net other than on the who should pay for it part of the equation. The folks deemed correct by the peanut gallery seem to prefer having government taxes fund a bigger safety net. The wrong, evil, and somehow unknowing folks suggest that society has the capability to fund a bigger safety net through charity organizations. The correct folks think that a bigger safety net would be expensive and therefore needs to be funded by the government (because that's how government promotes the general welfare) and that the rich can shoulder the burden because they are, well, rich after all. Hyper delivers a(nother) searing evaluation of the religious hypocritical right (is this a double redundant statement in your eyes Hyper?) that ignores his howling about paying taxes on future earnings based on employment as an alien in the society. And John gets an "A" in spelling...I now return you to your regularly scheduled rants.
Kind Regards,
Chris
PS. Guest shows up before I can hit the post button. Guest, you seem to have some sense. Would you please register and invest your calm character into this board?
Thanks.
I'm a Canadian who returned to Canada after about 15 years in the US.
Our health care system is wobbly at best when it comes to how to pay. So is yours in the US. The problems look different but, in the end, it all boils down to rationing a valuable service. The US rations by $, leaving those without $ without service as well. But Canada rations by $ too, because the $ available cannot treat everyone immediately. On both sides of the border, people die or are miserable because the $ available are finite and the demand unlimited.
Having lived in both systems, I assure you that there are warts in both. In the end, it's a political choice.
Let me end with an explicit riposte to Martha's words quoted above. I take your statement that "basic health care for all" is "the right thing to do" as an indication that you believe that society, through the government, has an obligation to provide what you consider a basic necessity.
If that is so, then I must point out that food is a much more important basic necessity than any medical procedure or product you can name. Why aren't you agitating for a federal program to ensure that everyone is well fed?
Hyperborea
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
So far anyways. I've yet to meet any that aren't either live or on the 'net. I'll let you know if I do but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.
No "howling" on paying taxes on the earning I make in the US. I pay a sizable amount in taxes (including a large amount to fund Georgie's adventures) - taxation without representation - and I don't "howl". I do object ("howling" if you will) to the idea that I will become a "possession" of the US government just by staying a certain amount of time. I will be gone before that happens.
Now, if I was motivated by "pure greed" as some seem to be then I would be all for cutting every social program and lowering taxes (perhaps even a "flat" tax that would cut my tax load in half or more). It would certainly bring me the most benefit and I would be gone long before the repercussions to society occur. Why do some who plan on living in the US long term want to turn it into Somalia - little to no government oversight and little to no social safety nets?
Wow, the accusations on this board are way out of control! The reactions are way out of proportion to what was originally stated! At this point I'm to understand that because I go to church on Sunday and donate thousands of dollars a year voluntarily that I'm a "right wing religous hypocrite" motivated by "pure greed" and I want all poor people put in concentration camps to await their turn in the "showers". Geez! I was educated in public schools, including college, and now that I have a good job I pay my taxes happily knowing I'm helping the next generation get their "leg up". I'm just saying this latest SS plan is bad government, that eventually this Ponzi scheme will collapse, that we have to be smarter with our tax dollars. But I keep hearing back, "Your killing Babies! Baby Killer!" uh....let's dial it back some, eh?
Well, you certainly contributed to "dialing it back some".
There are many "tweaks" that can be made to prevent any foreseeable "collapse" without dismantling the program.
Charities can choose who they give their resources to - and they may not be blind to someone's age, race, ethnicity or religion. When economic times get bad - just when assistance in needed most - charity giving goes down. Charities can't run in deficits.
Sure there are tweaks that can avert problems, but this new private account plan isn't one of them! That's all I'm saying. In fact I stated what tweaks I support earlier in this thread. Well, judging from all the miscommunication, bashing, etc. etc. going on in just this thread among a subset of the population that is probably wealthier, more educated, and laid back than the average, it's easy to see how so little gets done in Whashington....
Follow up for Cal,
I had to run and pick my daughter up, so I ended prematurely. Your statement on people donating less during economic downturns; do you have facts/data to back that up? Statements made with an authorative tone tend not to be questioned, but I have my doubts. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but among my circle of friends, income bears almost no correlation to charitable giving. I have a young millionaire friend who does not donate at all, and friends poorer than me who put me to shame. Your statement also implies that the government would not scale back in lean years, yet every time the economy turns down, it's the programs for the least well off in society that are first on the chopping block!
To get to your first point though, I should have put a smiley face next to my Third Reich reference, as I was joking around, but yes, I didn't need to go to such extremes to make my point. These are all complex issues, I am definitely for a safety net, I just think it shouldn't be counted on for retirement, or all of it, anyway. Next year, due to the pesription drug benefit (boo) Medicare will start burning more money than it takes in, and in 2018, SS will start burning more than it takes in. At those points, the debate will stop being academic and start getting painful. (And to those who would say SS has enough in it's trust to pay all accounts through 2044, that's not money in there, it's IOU's left by congress after it was raided for the general fund-try cashing that!)
I had to run and pick my daughter up, so I ended prematurely. Your statement on people donating less during economic downturns; do you have facts/data to back that up? Statements made with an authorative tone tend not to be questioned, but I have my doubts. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but among my circle of friends, income bears almost no correlation to charitable giving. I have a young millionaire friend who does not donate at all, and friends poorer than me who put me to shame. Your statement also implies that the government would not scale back in lean years, yet every time the economy turns down, it's the programs for the least well off in society that are first on the chopping block!
To get to your first point though, I should have put a smiley face next to my Third Reich reference, as I was joking around, but yes, I didn't need to go to such extremes to make my point. These are all complex issues, I am definitely for a safety net, I just think it shouldn't be counted on for retirement, or all of it, anyway. Next year, due to the pesription drug benefit (boo) Medicare will start burning more money than it takes in, and in 2018, SS will start burning more than it takes in. At those points, the debate will stop being academic and start getting painful. (And to those who would say SS has enough in it's trust to pay all accounts through 2044, that's not money in there, it's IOU's left by congress after it was raided for the general fund-try cashing that!)
That's different, Martha.
When it comes to food, those programs you mention only go to poor people. In the US today, poor people also qualify for Medicaid, so their medical care is covered.
But from what you've written, you seem to believe that everyone has a right to health care even if they're not all that poor.
Food is more important than health care. Surely, then, everyone has a right to food even if they're not all that poor.
I'm an everyone. Are you volunteering to raise your taxes (pssst, Uncle Sam, take more from Martha) so that I can have rack of lamb every night?
If so, it's simpler just to send me the money directly.
If not, your support of universal health care at someone else's expense is hypocritical. Believe me, I need racks of lamb way more than most people need hip replacements.
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Whoops! Time for some logic review. There might be a good online course for you?I'm an everyone. Are you volunteering to raise your taxes (pssst, Uncle Sam, take more from Martha) so that I can have rack of lamb every night?
If so, it's simpler just to send me the money directly.
If not, your support of universal health care at someone else's expense is hypocritical. Believe me, I need racks of lamb way more than most people need hip replacements.
Mikey
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
That's what I like about women! They can tell you to go to hell and make it sound like a benediction.
Mikey
J
JOhn Galt
Guest
I agree Mikey. My spouse does that to me all the time
Re. "accusations", "rancor", etc etc. IMHO you need to
retain your sense of humor and not take yourself too
seriously. After all, we are all in this together and
ultimately face the same fate. I have an advantage in having
extraordinarily thick skin as well as being naturally
confrontational. When I was young I actually enjoyed a
good fight. Anyway, people have different views and getting it out there is healthy, I forget who said it but
"I may not agree with a thing you say, but will defend to
the death your right to say it!". I agree with that.
JG
Re. "accusations", "rancor", etc etc. IMHO you need to
retain your sense of humor and not take yourself too
seriously. After all, we are all in this together and
ultimately face the same fate. I have an advantage in having
extraordinarily thick skin as well as being naturally
confrontational. When I was young I actually enjoyed a
good fight. Anyway, people have different views and getting it out there is healthy, I forget who said it but
"I may not agree with a thing you say, but will defend to
the death your right to say it!". I agree with that.
JG
F
Familyretired
Guest
I once asked my father-in-law (75) how his parents/grandparents viewed retirement. His reply was that there was no such thing as retirement in his parents days - they just worked until they died...or they were supported by thier kids.
If I remember right - that's one reason people used to have large families - to make sure that you were supported in your old age (of course the other was that there was no such thing as "the Pill").
This retirement thing is a pretty new thing in society. Social Security was started because of the Great Depression and had a number of purposes (remember that Keynes felt that government spending was the key to improving the economy).
Of course now we have globalization to muck up the works. I'm sure when a lot of people retired - the company also expected to live up to the bargain - they didn't count on global competition putting them out of business (as in the steel companies). If I remember right - $2K-$4K of every US car goes to the GM/Ford etc. retirement plan.
BTW - medical expenses and health care economics are really tricky - I believe that 80%-90% of medical expenses occurs in the last 2 years of life. Of course the question is - how do you predict the last 2 years of life
If I remember right - that's one reason people used to have large families - to make sure that you were supported in your old age (of course the other was that there was no such thing as "the Pill").
This retirement thing is a pretty new thing in society. Social Security was started because of the Great Depression and had a number of purposes (remember that Keynes felt that government spending was the key to improving the economy).
Of course now we have globalization to muck up the works. I'm sure when a lot of people retired - the company also expected to live up to the bargain - they didn't count on global competition putting them out of business (as in the steel companies). If I remember right - $2K-$4K of every US car goes to the GM/Ford etc. retirement plan.
BTW - medical expenses and health care economics are really tricky - I believe that 80%-90% of medical expenses occurs in the last 2 years of life. Of course the question is - how do you predict the last 2 years of life
F
Familyretired
Guest
I once asked my father-in-law (75) how his parents/grandparents viewed retirement. His reply was that there was no such thing as retirement in his parents days - they just worked until they died...or they were supported by thier kids.
If I remember right - that's one reason people used to have large families - to make sure that you were supported in your old age (of course the other was that there was no such thing as "the Pill").
This retirement thing is a pretty new thing in society. Social Security was started because of the Great Depression and had a number of purposes (remember that Keynes felt that government spending was the key to improving the economy).
Of course now we have globalization to muck up the works. I'm sure when a lot of people retired - the company also expected to live up to the bargain - they didn't count on global competition putting them out of business (as in the steel companies). If I remember right - $2K-$4K of every US car goes to the GM/Ford etc. retirement plan.
BTW - medical expenses and health care economics are really tricky - I believe that 80%-90% of medical expenses occurs in the last 2 years of life. Of course the question is - how do you predict the last 2 years of life
If I remember right - that's one reason people used to have large families - to make sure that you were supported in your old age (of course the other was that there was no such thing as "the Pill").
This retirement thing is a pretty new thing in society. Social Security was started because of the Great Depression and had a number of purposes (remember that Keynes felt that government spending was the key to improving the economy).
Of course now we have globalization to muck up the works. I'm sure when a lot of people retired - the company also expected to live up to the bargain - they didn't count on global competition putting them out of business (as in the steel companies). If I remember right - $2K-$4K of every US car goes to the GM/Ford etc. retirement plan.
BTW - medical expenses and health care economics are really tricky - I believe that 80%-90% of medical expenses occurs in the last 2 years of life. Of course the question is - how do you predict the last 2 years of life
