S & P Dire Warnings

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

SS has always been 'looted.' The idea of taxes now to fund benefits later was always a lie. What we should do now is, 1) tax all income, not just up to a limit, and 2) let the rate float to whatever it needs to be to cover that year's benefits.

So no body knows or can plan a bugget, wow very good that will work.

[BlueStreak]

Oh, so now Wall Street tells us "trickle down" economics doesn't work and that the Randian Gekkoites were probably wrong?

Nice to hear after 30+ years of selfish, unbridled greed driven destruction. Good thing we have these geniuses around to help us avert disaster. We might have lost most of our industry by now.

Dave

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You should be OK Potter.

Not because of your 401 K, but because of Social Security.

The most I ever made while I was working was 55K a year and I draw $22,500 a year in Social Security. And I only have to pay $105 a month out of that for Medicare.

So if you and your wife did about the same as I did, you'll get about 45K a year combined from Social Security. That's enough for a frugal empty nester couple to live with some semblance of dignity as long as they stay away from high cost of living areas.

But make no mistake.

The Koch Brothers, who have enough wealth right now to pay yours and your wife's social security for the next 2.2 Million years, (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...rs-to-ads.html) are not satisfied with that. They want more, and they have sent their hired guns, the Republicans, to take your Social Security away from you.

Thanks for this real world look at it Tom, I appreciate it a lot.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by icenine

It seems like homeownership is going down among college educated young people....

which is a very bad trend. I imagine most people who are fortunate enough to own their homes when they retire may start leaving them to their kids so they will have a place to live after the parents are dead.

This is the plan my missus and I have. Neither one of my kids are doing great. They struggle. Buying a car is almost impossiblefor them so home ownership is totally out of the question. We're planning to move to the east coast to be near them. The plan to buy a home big enough for a milti generational family and leave it to them.

Things have changed since I started out. They will never have the opportunities I had.

[piece-itpete]

22 a year. Is that before taxes? You know, if I manage to buy a cheap house cash I might be able to make it work. I've always figured I'd die in the traces. Thanks x2.

Pete

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

22 a year.

That's only if your people, the Republicans, don't get their way.

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I've always figured I'd die in the traces.Pete

Keep voting Republican and you might. That's what they want for you.

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Thanks x2.

Pete

Don't thank me. Thank that old "racist" FDR.

[piece-itpete]

Once a racist, always a racist, right? No hiding him now Tom

According to my dad it was sold as a forced savings account basically and a bare safety net. In 1935 life expectancy was 60 male and female 64.

SS reform was passed under the evil Reagan. I remember it well - it tripled my fica withholding.

It was supposed to cover the boomers retiring. Instead the politicians spent it (big surprise there?).

So now we'll have to figure out how to pay for increased structural spending of that now-gone surplus, plus pay for the SS itself again. All while having the same increased fica.

I don't blame the Dems Tom, it belongs right on the backs of the whole rotten lot of them.

Pete

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Once a racist, always a racist, right? No hiding him now Tom

According to my dad it was sold as a forced savings account basically and a bare safety net. In 1935 life expectancy was 60 male and female 64.

SS reform was passed under the evil Reagan. I remember it well - it tripled my fica withholding.

It was supposed to cover the boomers retiring. Instead the politicians spent it (big surprise there?).

So now we'll have to figure out how to pay for increased structural spending of that now-gone surplus, plus pay for the SS itself again. All while having the same increased fica.

I don't blame the Dems Tom, it belongs right on the backs of the whole rotten lot of them.

Pete

As usual Pete, your entire post is full of shit.

I'll start with your assertion that your FICA with holding tripled with the Social Security reform of 1983.

In 1982 the total FICA with holding was 6.7%

http://www.tax-atlas.com/historical-fica-tax-rates/

By 1990 it has risen to the current level of 7.65%.

Wanna try to show me how you got tripled out of that?

I don't think so.

That's all I have time for now.

I reserve the right to take apart the rest of your full of shit post at a time of my own choosing.

[piece-itpete]

Be that as it may, we all sat around the bar on payday and marveled at it. If I'm wrong I'd guess we didn't understand what went up and why.

Here's the breakdown of the '83 law that 'saved' SS:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

Feel free to take apart the rest of my shit post when ever you can, if ever.

Pete

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Be that as it may, we all sat around the bar on payday and marveled at it.

So that's your excuse for how you got "tripled" out of an increase from 6.7% to 7.65% over a period of six years?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

Social Security tax rates (which include the Hospital Insurance tax rates) for employers and employees will increase to 7.0 percent in 1984, {1} 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter.

You were drunk?

And here it is 30 years later and you were still saying it tripled.

Does that mean you've been drunk for the past 30 years?

I have to admit, that to me would be a plausible explanation for the kind of posts you make here.