Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? What happened to the idea of personal freedom? If someone chooses a field with low demand and low pay maybe they should consider the options. Most of us have faced numerous situations where we had to work hard to gain new employable skills and often have had to move to where there are jobs. We now have virtually no unemployment. That is way more opportunity than most of us had throughout our lives.
You mean the "personal freedom" to amass vast shares of the national wealth, and then use the money to control the income and working conditions of those who have not acquired your power?
Other than Fox and the nutty right wing conspiracy web sites, everybody else is out there fact checking the steady stream of lies coming out of Washington DC. For example, here's the New York Times recent collection on Trump.
Like I said, you are a part of the problem. You are either blind to the bias or choose to ignore it. People tend to watch the channels and read the websites of those that support their opinions.
yup, fair enough. but what we are seeing now is that people are receiving more than they are putting in.
That has always been the case. And if you fund an IRA or 401-k, you too will be hoping to get back more than what you put in thanks to interest, dividends, capital gains, and so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
i got a social security booklet a few years ago which indicated that i am projected to receive 70% of what i should be receiving benefits if i retire on time.
If this were 1980 or so, you would have received a notice that you were projected to receive nothing. But 25 years before the first of them began to retire, a fix was found to get the system past the demographic blip of retiring Baby Boomers. The assumptions that your 70% number are currently based on are extremely pessimistic. Part of that is justified, and part is not. The projections need to be off by only a little bit for the Trust Fund never to become exhausted, meaning that 100% of scheduled benefits could be paid in perpetuity. If you are concerned that they might not be, there are many ways in which we could shore up the system. We've done it before. We could easily do it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
people are living longer and healthier which is a good thing but it is not a bank account.
Actually, rates of premature death due to misuse of drugs, suicide, and a few other factors have been increasing and overall US life expectancy has been decreasing as the result.
Like I said, you are a part of the problem. You are either blind to the bias or choose to ignore it. People tend to watch the channels and read the websites of those that support their opinions.
Nope. I read a broad and diverse collection of news sources. I live in the world of facts. I use facts to support my opinions and often change my opinion on things when presented with updated information. I do not cling to mythology in the face of facts that contradict that. Professionally, I'd get fired if I ever did that. Fox News and it's brethren are propaganda for the poorly educated unwashed masses. If you buy into that whole thing, I suggest some personal introspection.
If this were 1980 or so, you would have received a notice that you were projected to receive nothing. But 25 years before the first of them began to retire, a fix was found to get the system past the demographic blip of retiring Baby Boomers. The assumptions that your 70% number are currently based on are extremely pessimistic. Part of that is justified, and part is not. The projections need to be off by only a little bit for the Trust Fund never to become exhausted, meaning that 100% of scheduled benefits could be paid in perpetuity. If you are concerned that they might not be, there are many ways in which we could shore up the system. We've done it before. We could easily do it again.
This "social security is bankrupt' is all propaganda from the rich people who own corporations that pay 50% of payroll taxes to avoid any payroll tax increases. Those same rich people don't want their passive income taxed. Any 'fix' bumps the tax rate in some way. Social Security is 70% funded using very pessimistic modeling about growth rates. It won't take much of a fix to make it cash flow neutral forever.
The whole point of the tax cuts is to be able to shriek "we have no money to fund Social Security and Medicare" since those are the two heavy hitters in the budget. They'll then propose "reforms" which harm the elderly. It's really cynical and vicious.
I think it's quickly going to once again be the political third rail. They're not going to touch Social Security or Medicare because they'll all get booted out of office in the 2018 elections and the gravy train ends. Old people and anyone who thinks they'll eventually become old people all vote. Poor people don't vote. Instead, they'll go after Medicaid, CHIP kid Medicaid, SNAP/food stamps, educational support for poor areas of the country, and pretty much everything else for poor people except Section 8. Trump and his buddies are Section 8 slum lords so they're not going to touch that program since it feeds their real estate empires.
...and then we cycle back to the riots of the 1960's.
Nigeria is nowhere wealthy enough to even be able to fund a mere shoestring welfare program.
never been there before but i wouldnt consider nigeria to be an impoverished nation. of the several nigerian-americans i know, they seem to be fairly well-educated (many impoverished nations cant afford public school) and the government doesnt seem to be incapable like say the congo. i think they would have a pretty good gdp. aside from the 200 girls from the boarding school that were kidnapped by boko-haran, you rarely hear of bad news coming from there (but that mite be due to our news filters focused mostly on north-america and europe/austrailia).
Well, let me put it this way: I was making $24,000 a year and paying 25% out of that for taxes. I don't really care what taxes they were, all I cared about was that 25% of my earned income was gone. So I think people who are making about $500,000 a year or more should probably pay at least that to make it fair. Doing short form all the way, itemizing nothing. That would pretty much even the playing field.
ianaa (i am not an accountant) but iirc tax liability (filing single with no dependents) is 0% if agi less than 12,500/year. so 25% at 24,000 seems high.
but most high earners dont make w-2 wages. they have 1099-div's in which $millions of capitol gains are taxed at about 15%.
The constant diatribes about Fox News is getting old. CNN and MSNBC are the same way when it comes to the liberal point of view, yet you and others making the fox comments fail to point that out.
my opinion:
fox news is heavily rite.
msnbc is heavily left.
cnn is slightly left.
I think it's quickly going to once again be the political third rail. They're not going to touch Social Security or Medicare because they'll all get booted out of office in the 2018 elections and the gravy train ends.
I wouldn't count on that. Most Republicans seem to have given up on reelection and are in full smash-and-grab mode. They'll cut benefits, give their benefactors huge tax cuts, and retire to cushy no-show jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
