Retire in your 30s and Get Subsidized Healthcare? I don't get it.

[marko]

Boy, has someone got you snookered....

+1

As they said in "The Princess Bride", 'I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.'

 

[marko]

You cannot look at what is taxed today and multiply it by so many years... when I first was on SS the max was something like $40K and it was less...


Go take a look at your stmts and it will tell you how much you have put into the system... I would be big money it is not $240K... probably $120K is closer...

That's my point. I was responding to someone who said (or maybe I mis-read) that you don't get back what you paid into it.

If only paid $120K (likely even less) and I'm now collecting $20K a year, it's a good return.

 

[Winemaker]

My opinion is that the corporate tax rate should be zero. In spite of what many think, corporations are people. When those people (owners) get the capital gains or income from the corporation, tax that as heavily as desired. In the meantime, our corporations would be the most competitive in the world, and the world would want to invest here.

+10

 

[ivinsfan]

That's my point. I was responding to someone who said (or maybe I mis-read) that you don't get back what you paid into it.

If only paid $120K (likely even less) and I'm now collecting $20K a year, it's a good return.

my comment was to another poster you said you pay in and then when you retire that "you get YOUR OWN money back and I disagreed saying basically no one gets the EXACT same amount of money back that they payed into the system.because that's not the way it works. Some people get more and some get less....IOW they do not stop your SS checks when you have received as much as you payed in.

 

[pb4uski]

That's my point. I was responding to someone who said (or maybe I mis-read) that you don't get back what you paid into it.

If only paid $120K (likely even less) and I'm now collecting $20K a year, it's a good return.

Page 3 of your SSA statement will show you how much you paid in and how much your employer paid in.... no need to guess.

 

[joeea]

I do not know if you're over-reacting or not.

I retired from Active Duty when I was 42. I have a pension and pretty good healthcare coverage.

You followed the rules and reaped the available benefits. Just like the 33 year old did.

 

[joeea]

In spite of what many think, corporations are people.

So is Soylent Green.

In the meantime, our corporations would be the most competitive in the world, and the world would want to invest here.

They are. And they do.

 

[scrabbler1]

Well, SS is by definition a tax on earned income. It is not levied on interest income, nor on stock dividends.

It's kind of crummy, when you are taxed on income that you sweat and toil to get, but not on income that comes from your capital while you surf the Web and BS on a retirement forum. But I have been enjoying this, so why do I bring this up? As Orwell said, some animals are more equal than others.

At some point, when they need to beef up SS funding, they may tax everything. Then, we retired people will pay SS on everything. See what you think about that!

Now, will they do SS tax on SS benefits? Heck, why not?

SS is mainly a wage replacement program, designed to replace the wages of people who have become too old, in theory, to work any more (or do disabled people and survivors of wage earners). An it replaces wages only up to a certain point, as we don't want SS to be paying out monstrous checks to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to replace their huge amounts of wage income.

Why should anyone have to pay SS taxes on income SS is not designed to replace? That includes non-wage income as well as wage income over the wage cap SS will not replace.

 

[Cayman]

A big strength of this community is the accurate information that is shared here, civilly.

US medical facilities are not mandated by law to provide ongoing uncompensated - free - care to Canadian oncology patients. That is false. MichaelB and another poster called the falsehoods out, but others are still still referring to and questioning the misinformation that was posted earlier.

If you show up in an ER, they must treat you, regardless of your ability/willingness to pay. They aren't mandated by law to provide free, ongoing cancer treatment. The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act mandates that hospitals cannot refuse care to critically ill patients and that the physician on call must treat them. The quality of care delivered by the ER is often very different for paying vs non-paying patients. In many communities, it's patch 'em up and send 'em to the curb (literally). This is for US citizens cared for in US medical facilities. I've seen it first hand.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Some people that don’t pay into SS work for a government agency that is not part of SS. For example all the state, city, counties in NV are not paying into SS. This is fine for people that work there for 30 years but people like us are really penalized due to WEP. I can’t believe O Farmer actually believes what he wrote about applying for SS. Yes others may work under the table and not pay in also.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Why should anyone have to pay SS taxes on income SS is not designed to replace? That includes non-wage income as well as wage income over the wage cap SS will not replace.

The answer is that Social Security has been chipped away at for the last 35 years or so. Starting with Taxing Benefits and playing games with the inflation adjustment. So, it is no longer functioning as it 'Was designed' originally. So, it is a matter of keeping society intact. Before Social Security, during the Depression, people relied on Soup Lines funded by Mobsters like Al Capone.


What you are asking is similar to the Childless couple asking why they should have to pay taxes to Fund Schools etc. if they are not having any Children that will attend them. And the answer is that we live and function in a Society.

 

[Cayman]

Perhaps it is time to freeze or greatly reduce future increases to SS.

 

[6miths]

A big strength of this community is the accurate information that is shared here, civilly.

US medical facilities are not mandated by law to provide ongoing uncompensated - free - care to Canadian oncology patients. That is false. MichaelB and another poster called the falsehoods out, but others are still still referring to and questioning the misinformation that was posted earlier.

If you show up in an ER, they must treat you, regardless of your ability/willingness to pay. They aren't mandated by law to provide free, ongoing cancer treatment. The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act mandates that hospitals cannot refuse care to critically ill patients and that the physician on call must treat them. The quality of care delivered by the ER is often very different for paying vs non-paying patients. In many communities, it's patch 'em up and send 'em to the curb (literally). This is for US citizens cared for in US medical facilities. I've seen it first hand.

+1

And emergency care is not provided to Canadians free either. We are billed. Frequently at rates that are hundreds of times what the same services would be provided for 'free' in Canada. This is one of the reasons that both the government and individuals attempt to exit the US as soon as possible if a medical problem comes up and why many individuals with any health problem are reluctant to travel into the US.

This an interesting thread to read. Such different attitudes. I am more than happy to pay into the pot though I have been blessed to never had to use the system. It is a very small price to pay to know that my family is covered when the day comes that they will need excellent care. And in some ways it makes me feel good to know that everyone else is covered in the same way.

 

[scrabbler1]

The answer is that Social Security has been chipped away at for the last 35 years or so. Starting with Taxing Benefits and playing games with the inflation adjustment. So, it is no longer functioning as it 'Was designed' originally. So, it is a matter of keeping society intact. Before Social Security, during the Depression, people relied on Soup Lines funded by Mobsters like Al Capone.


What you are asking is similar to the Childless couple asking why they should have to pay taxes to Fund Schools etc. if they are not having any Children that will attend them. And the answer is that we live and function in a Society.

I'm not buying any of it. One of the pillars of support for SS is that there is some link between what one pays into the system and what gets from it. To tax income which has zero linkage to any payouts begins to turn the program into a welfare program and will weaken its support.

As for the childless couples and school taxes, I can tell you that as a childfree person I'd simply like to see some link between the number of children one sends the public schools and the amount of school taxes one pays. I'm not saying I should pay zero, just that I should pay less than someone else who, for example, lives in the same school district as I do, has a house with the value as I do, has the same income as I do, but sends 1 child to the local school district and is therefore a much greater burden on the district as I am.

 

[Texas Proud]

I will add a bit as I remember seeing a story recently about our broken health care system... it is where someone is getting 'free' medical care, but she is not foreign....


This lady needs dialysis but either does not have the money to pay for it or no insurance (cannot remember).. so she just does not get any... so she has to wait until she gets so sick she has to go to the emergency room where they give her dialysis and whatever else she needs... then out she goes...until she gets so sick again that she has to go back to the emergency room...



As they said, regular dialysis would be much cheaper than the way she is doing it....


I still cannot see how anybody can get cancer treatment doing this...

 

[Huston55]

FYI. If you want to discuss ‘subsidies’ in general (beyond “ACA subsidies for 30-Something’s”), there’s a thread for that...

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/subsidies-what-do-you-think-93469.html

 

[NW-Bound]

SS is mainly a wage replacement program, designed to replace the wages of people who have become too old, in theory, to work any more (or do disabled people and survivors of wage earners). An it replaces wages only up to a certain point, as we don't want SS to be paying out monstrous checks to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to replace their huge amounts of wage income.

Why should anyone have to pay SS taxes on income SS is not designed to replace? That includes non-wage income as well as wage income over the wage cap SS will not replace.

SS initially was not even wage replacement, and just an income augmentation. Then, people rely more and more on it. It is no longer what it was.

This subject came up before, and I spent some time to look at the Australian system, which they came up in 1980 as a fix to their broken system. Everybody has to contribute to a 401k-like system. People who were not able to work or earn little in their lifetime due to various reasons are given a retirement pension but it is means tested. It is indeed welfare.

The money for the welfare pension above comes from the general revenue. That is the big difference with our SS system. Our SS is really welfare in disguise. With the 401k/IRA, if you put in 2x what your neighbor does, you will get out 2x. Not so with SS.

Another thing I like about the Australian system is that your finance in retirement depends on the overall economy, just like with your 401k/IRA. If the business environment is good, your retirement income is good. If it is not good enough to live on, then you apply for the welfare pension.

Nobody gets a guaranteed $100+K pension, while the young people are out of work in a recession. They are all in it together.

 

[gwraigty]

Some people that don’t pay into SS work for a government agency that is not part of SS. For example all the state, city, counties in NV are not paying into SS. This is fine for people that work there for 30 years but people like us are really penalized due to WEP. I can’t believe O Farmer actually believes what he wrote about applying for SS. Yes others may work under the table and not pay in also.

Agree. When I worked, I was always required to give my SS number after being hired.

Now, many places require you to give your SS number just to apply for a job, as I learned when assisting my son through the process to get his first job. Part of that, as they explain it, is to make sure they're not hiring someone here illegally.

 

[Texas Proud]

Agree. When I worked, I was always required to give my SS number after being hired.

Now, many places require you to give your SS number just to apply for a job, as I learned when assisting my son through the process to get his first job. Part of that, as they explain it, is to make sure they're not hiring someone here illegally.

Well, by law if you get a paycheck from anyone you need to fill out an I-9 that requires you to give your SS number... so any legit business will not give you a paycheck without you giving your SS number...

 

[gwraigty]

Well, by law if you get a paycheck from anyone you need to fill out an I-9 that requires you to give your SS number... so any legit business will not give you a paycheck without you giving your SS number...

Yes, not disputing that at all. I'm affirming that I also find one poster's assertion that SS is an optional insurance policy to be...incorrect. Yet said poster keeps repeating it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[FUEGO]

Don't be so touchy Fuego Are you telling us that you will not be taking your SS checks?

Not if you older millionaires keep claiming it before I get there!

Are you talking about SS, ACA, Medicare or the over 65 tax break?

I'm in! I've paid millions in taxes over my life; I'm now saying "where's mine?".

But but but you don't need it! You're taking food out of the mouths of poooor people! What if there's no money left when I'm in my 60's in another 3 decades?! Who's gonna pay for all of my cruises?!?!?

 

[joeea]

Perhaps it is time to freeze or greatly reduce future increases to SS.

Because future retirees won't need any increases? Because the mathematics of inflation will somehow never affect future retirees? Because, I got mine so screw the future? Because you don't have any children anyway?

Sorry, it's not at all clear what you mean.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Not if you older millionaires keep claiming it before I get there!

That has nothing to do with it..... Focus on the Politicians that will Save it or try to Chip away at it...

 

[RunningBum]

Yes, not disputing that at all. I'm affirming that I also find one poster's assertion that SS is an optional insurance policy to be...incorrect. Yet said poster keeps repeating it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

There's a reason I have said poster on my ignore list.

 

[pb4uski]

I don't have anyone on Ignore yet, but he and a couple others are prime candidates if I decide to start.