Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:30 PM
 
335 posts, read 422,399 times
Reputation: 421

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Republicans suggest cuts down the line.
Not in the Middle East. Republicans squandered trillions in Iraq, and soon to be Iran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:30 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,339,185 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
4.6 Million seniors are taking free money.

Millions and millions of homeowners are taking free money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:31 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,631,394 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And the baby boomers will be the first generation to have contributed more than they will get back.
Does that mean their families will get refunds when they die ?
I wouldn't be so sure of that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-paid-what-yo/

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

Forbes Welcome

The amount that American workers have paid and are paying into Medicare isn’t enough to fund all the benefits that are being paid out to seniors under Medicare.

And they are't even counting the Medicaid seniors take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:33 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,631,394 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Millions and millions of homeowners are taking free money.
My mortgage isn't free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:34 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,631,394 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhandem View Post
Not in the Middle East. Republicans squandered trillions in Iraq, and soon to be Iran.
Not to mention the 40 billion dollars on pallets that mysteriously disappeared in Bagdad.

NY Fed's $40 Billion Iraqi Money Trail

Republicans never complained about that once.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:38 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,339,185 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
My mortgage isn't free.

Got mortgage interest deduction? Got homestead exemption? Got Prop 13? Got property tax cap? Got preferential property tax rate? Got fixed P & I payment (try doing that with rent)?

Got untaxed housing consumption?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:41 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,631,394 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Got mortgage interest deduction? Got homestead exemption? Got Prop 13? Got property tax cap? Got preferential property tax rate?

Got untaxed housing consumption?

Got mortgage deduction but my taxes are so high the impact is minimal. No homestead, no Prop 13, no property tax cap, no preferential tax rate, no untaxed housing consumption. By the way, most of those are state dependent, not federal. These benefits are federal. Though Prop 13 does sound pretty great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,066,222 times
Reputation: 21733
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Benefits have been cut in the past thru raising the retirement age without much political expense.
Uh, wut?

Raising the retirement age is not a benefit cut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I noticed he called ss an entitlement.
I notice you've never read the law:


Title 42 United States Code Section 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits. Every individual who—

(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—


Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
As workers, we paid into that program, and are collecting money based on what we put into the plan over a lifetime of work.
Nope, wrong again.

Your benefit is based on your average monthly wages as indexed over a period of 30 years.

The amount of FICA payroll taxes you paid is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
Who the hell is he to say it's an entitlement program.
Did you read the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
He is the one who lead the theft of Social Security funds to "balance" the budget.

The person should have told him "Eff you".
The ignorant typically believe that. Try reading the law:

TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT

Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account.

(b)
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired

(1) on original issue at par, or
(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.

(c)
Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.

(d)
The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.

(e)
All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.

(f)
The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.


Source: Social Security History


Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
You hardly ever here Democrats address what is needed to shore up SS.
The Silent Generation was slammed with a 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them, excluding the increases in Medicare.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them, excluding the increases in Medicare.

If Generation X-Box and Generation Whine can't handle a 44.6% increase to make sure Social Security and Medicare still exists for them, then my recommendation is they cry in their Starsux latte and get over it already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:46 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,339,185 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

Forbes Welcome

The amount that American workers have paid and are paying into Medicare isn’t enough to fund all the benefits that are being paid out to seniors under Medicare.

And they are't even counting the Medicaid seniors take.

tsk tsk, cherrypicking your stats.

Two-earner couples are, on average, more affluent than the rest of us (esp singles), and live on average significantly longer than the rest of us, thus they take out more than the rest of us. Of course, those affluent two-earner couples are usually not the ones taking Medicaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 06:50 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,631,394 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
If Generation X-Box and Generation Whine can't handle a 44.6% increase to make sure Social Security and Medicare still exists for them, then my recommendation is they cry in their Starsux latte and get over it already.
I'm really going to enjoy watching it all get cut. Exactly how was that Medicare Part D funded?

By the way, the retirement age is not 62, it's 67 and likely to go higher. And exactly who funded the Medicaid going to 4.6 Million seniors? 4.6 MILLION seniors are getting Medicaid to pay for their Medicare and senior housing. The younger generation is paying for that.

When Medicare started it was not funded AT ALL. What's more, seniors are living longer than ever. Want to know who's paying for that? Those that are still working.

You are going to have a battle between seniors and those who are still working. The first thing that should end is Medicare Part D, right after Medicaid. You didn't pay for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top