Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Excellent points, hopemax. I think too many of the people looking to slash Medicare, Social Security and such really have not investigated what life was like for elderly people before these things were implemented. And you'd think that having just witnessed the economic meltdown, what, less than 3 years ago, that people would see why such a safety net is necessary and right.
Originally Posted By Tony C Well in all fairness, if you lived to 60 heck 50 in the olden days Willard Scott wished you a happy birthday.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "I don't think many people have really thought about how the elimination of Social Security and Medicare will really affect them." Thats because they've been brain washed into believing that they won't get a single penny out of it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Well in all fairness, if you lived to 60 heck 50 in the olden days Willard Scott wished you a happy birthday.<< LOL!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>We can all pretend that we're in the top 5 or 10% that might be able to squirrel away enough money to cover the costs, but I think most of us are deluding ourselves.<< Oh my yes.
Originally Posted By hopemax Of course, the other "easy" way people have for solving the SS/Medicare shortfall is to raise the age to collect benefits. However, the Great Recession shares a cautionary tale. While unemployment for the 55+ age group is the lowest of the age groups. If a person age 55+ were to lose their job, it is taking them longer to find another. <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51636121-78/older-march-jobless-weeks.html.csp" target="_blank">http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n...html.csp</a> "Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the AARP Public Policy Institute found that in March older job seekers had been out of work for an average of nearly 52 weeks, up from about 46 weeks in February. The general employment shortage means seniors who left or lost their jobs probably won’t find another. At the start of the recession in 2007, older workers were jobless for 20.2 weeks; by June 2009, that grew to 29.9 weeks; now, the report says, the duration is 51.5 weeks." So maybe people don't have to look forward to living their entire retirement with their kids. Just between 55 & 70 (or whatever the retirement age is raised to), if their employer decides they are too expensive. Or maybe the reverse, they blow through their 401K in those years before Social Security kicks in; and then end up with the kids. We'll probably get a sampling of what this world might be like since states are bristling at the idea of extending unemployment. Given how long it takes older workers to find jobs, a healthy chunk of the 99ers should be seniors.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///We should start with those making over $250,000/// Why 250K? That's too low. We should only go after those who have very substantial incomes; let's start at 500K.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I'd lower it to $200,000 or even $150,000./// way too low, Tony You can't even buy a real house in many areas of the US with numbers like that.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub You are correct. Funny how the good old days when you were young and poor and just starting out now has the feel of being "rich" in comparison to Today. Once upon a time this amount of yearly income would have been enough to exceed your dreams. Today it is never enough no matter how much you make. And that is why the super rich need more money. They know our money will be so devalued they fear being rich but poor!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Skinner...I didn't get to respond yesterday and I know this might just be semantics...but on the issue of entitlements here is what Joe Biden had to say in the 2008 debate: "Entitlements will be a problem if we don't act. But the solutions are within our capacity. Social Security is an entitlement program." He goes on to give some of his proposed solutions to shoring up both Social Security and Medicare. So, if it is good enough for the Vice President then I am comfortable continuing to call them entitlements. It certainly isn't part of the vast right wing conspiracy or some type of media induced conspiracy.
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't blame wahoo or anyone for saying "entitlements." Most news outlets use that term and, as he showed, Democrats do as well. No shock there that Democrats lost a chance to rebrand something. It's their greatest weakness, perhaps. That said, I also take issue with the broad acceptance of the term. I've never understood it - I pay into social security on every paycheck. How the heck is that an entitlement?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, most definitions of entitlement have some form of, "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program." So, if by paying into Social Security or Medicare you have a government secured right to benefit from it then it stands to reason that you are "entitled" to it. And, I'm not really judging Social Security or Medicare on their merits. I'm juding them on their sustainability. Plenty of my family members have and do receive those benefits. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just wondering how it is sustained over time given the very real economic implications.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm just wondering how it is sustained over time given the very real economic implications.<< I think it's sustainable...if we change the mentality of people in this country. Americans can be so generous, yet so greedy. Right now there is this mentality that taxes are bad, that money going to other people is even worse, and that anything anyone earns ought to be immediately hoarded, lest it be taken away. There is a total refusal to acknowledge our dependency on one another or the realities of living in a complex society. Helping one helps everyone. Instead, people get so wrapped up in the one overblown story about the one abuser of the system. The contempt for the poor in this country never ceases to amaze me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There is a total refusal to acknowledge our dependency on one another or the realities of living in a complex society.<< Well said, this is such a key point at this moment in our history. The "no new taxes ever" crowd refuses to believe that so many things are interconnected, and that much of the wealth people enjoy is as a result of the infrastructure of this country. The illusion these people cling to is that they are some brave pioneer out in the wilderness, totally self-sufficient.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The contempt for the poor in this country never ceases to amaze me.<< The Ayn Rand mindset.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper What is a reasonable percentage of one's income to be taxed? Right now I'm taxed 32.65% of my income when you add up the Federal Income Tax, Social Security and Medicare. Am I being greedy when I say I think that is more than fair? And, if I choose to keep the other 67% or so in order to shelter, clothe, feed, educate and entertain my family...that too is greed? Sorry, I don't buy it. (Actually, my charitable/faith based donations came up to another 8-9% of my salary.) Now, if you want to go after the corporate and individual loopholes that allow people or entities to go without paying their fair share them I'm all for it. I pay my taxes, I contribute significantly to charity, I pay my insurance premiums, I send in a donation every time George Clooney is on tv asking for help, and I buy Girl Scout cookies. And, I would fall under the "no new taxes" catergory because I really do think I am doing my part.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What is a reasonable percentage of one's income to be taxed?<< It depends. Right now, I get a big break because I pay a mortgage. Someone earning the exact wage I do but renting wouldn't get that break. That isn't really fair. It seems that once a person reaches into those higher levels, there are any number of legal ways for them to pay a smaller and smaller proportion of their income. I'm not saying "stick it to the rich!" I am just saying, hey, how about paying your fair share? Corporations, too. 10% of someone's income making $30,000 a year is a fairly devastating amount, while 10% of someone raking in millions in the course of the year wouldn't really be much of an impact. That's the problem with coming up with a "flat tax" -- it still doesn't make things balanced. >>Now, if you want to go after the corporate and individual loopholes that allow people or entities to go without paying their fair share them I'm all for it.<< That would certainly be a good place to start, and a point at which, you'd think, there would be some common ground. Perhaps it is, but I haven't heard much talk about that from the GOP lately.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And, if I choose to keep the other 67% or so in order to shelter, clothe, feed, educate and entertain my family...that too is greed? Sorry, I don't buy it.<< Unless you have the worst account ever, there's no way you pay 32.65% of your income to the Federal government. I have no doubt that's the rate, but between child tax credits, mortgage credits, etc. no one actually pays that much. (Correction: the poor and uneducated pay that much of their income because they can't afford an accountant or the nice version of Turbo Tax that gets you as many deductions as possible. Reason #932 the tax code favors the wealthy.) Based on the tax rate, my taxes ought to be around $20,000 a year. I pay less than $3,000 a year after write-offs, credits, etc. I can afford more and I'd be fine seeing my taxes go up another percentage point or two. No, I can't afford to pay $20,000 a year, which is why the tax code ought to be reformed to get rid of this silliness. And therein lies the problem. People are completely disconnected between what they actually pay and what they think they pay.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No, of course I fully understand the implications of credits and yes, I take advantage of them. And, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there are free versions of Turbo Tax basic and they can be accessed from any public library. I was being more simplistic, granted. But, I'm not exactly hoarding money under my mattress. I pay fairly into the system, I make charitable donations to entities I know are far wiser about spending my money than the government, I set aside money for retirement (a 401K...not a guaranteed pension) and I try to whittle a little away for education of the kids. If they fix all of the loopholes that are out there, eliminate pork barrel spending and THEN need more money from me...I'm willing to listen. Until then, count me as one of the disconnected.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If they fix all of the loopholes that are out there, eliminate pork barrel spending and THEN need more money from me...I'm willing to listen.<< Which everyone agrees with, but the problem with the "since it's all so screwed up I don't want to pay anymore" attitude is it only hurts the poor and the powerless. Corporations have lobbyists to ensure what taxes you do pay helps them; the single mom who just lost her WIC assistance doesn't have that luxury.
