U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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)
 
Old 09-28-2008, 09:37 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,799 posts, read 30,034,103 times
Reputation: 17687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
No one in the United States is denied quality healthcare. No one.


And not everyone is rich, many are "successful".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2008, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Than why is the question Is it fair that the top 5-10% pay the majority of the taxes?
Unless the politicians are thinking about funding the reformed healthcare system with federal tax money?
No Universal Health Insurance is on the horizon in the US -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2008, 09:38 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,516,394 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
No Universal Health Insurance is on the horizon in the US -
And this is way the Dutch take better care of their poor than you Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2008, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
the problem is that asked Great Day a few posts back to elaborate on his opting out. I did some of the research and found that the only way to legally opt out of SS is for religious purposes.. for example clergy can opt out..etc. Nowhere on the IRS website does it elude to any other legal form of opting out besides that. Those practicing the religion of Christian Science are on that list of those able to opt out.

The only way I see that he opted out was to be ordained a member of the clergy (which anyone can become a "minister" of one religion or another via the internet these days) or be a Christian Scientist. The reason this was done is for the same reason someone can't be barred from wearing a turban where headress may be restricted.. such as on passports etc. .. because of "religious" basis.... because the law was challenged in , I believe the supreme court, and as a result that is how people can opt out.

I then asked him to explain the religious principles that a religion oppposes Social Security contribution. I was seriously interested in learning why a religion would be against a system that looks out for fellow man and those less fortunate, as in my spritual practices NOT participating and opting out is just about the opposite. He instead deflected the question with citing that this is not a religious forum and asked the moderator about potentially striking my posts.

The IRS laws state that someone can't opt out of SS based on the simple fact that they don't agree with it for anything other than religious reasons. I did want him to explain the religious aspect of it because to me it is highly suspect. Basically, he found the loophole and squiggled his way through it so that he doesn't have to pay into something he doesn't believe should be in existence.. and not for religious reasons..which was the excuse he used to get out of SS. I have no proof of that and am not stating that is a fact, but that is the conclusion that I personally deduced from his lack of wanting to fully divulge the religious basis of his objection to SS.

One other poster said that he did post about how he opted out, although I looked and couldn't find that. But again.. I could find no other reason after extensive googling on the net beside the religion aspect that would allow someone to opt out of SS.

Again..GreatDay.. I'm not saying that what I am typing is the truth, because I don't know for sure..But.. you can bet that others will reach the same conclusions as I with your deflection on the issue and based on your stance against SS and any other form of taxes that do not directly benefit you (although they do indirectly).
you can opt out under certain conditions within the state. My wife is a government worker that does not pay into SS for her retirement. The money goes instead into a state retirement plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,765,860 times
Reputation: 1627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
you can opt out under certain conditions within the state. My wife is a government worker that does not pay into SS for her retirement. The money goes instead into a state retirement plan.
Could you elaborate? I do remember reading that three counties in Texas opted out before Washington slammed the door. They've been putting their money into stocks and so forth, which has far outpaced SS.

By 1996 the results were in, and county employees’ retirement benefits were triple what would have been paid by Social Security for a worker who earned $20,000 per year and over five times the Social Security benefits for a worker whose pay was $50,000 (see Chart 4, next page). Congress closed the local government opt-out window in 1983 with major Social Security reform legislation that raised taxes and effectively reduced benefits by raising the eligible retirement age after 2015.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
If you have more disposable income, then more of it would be available for taxation. But that's assuming that ANYONE should have to pay tax. Better yet to disband government, and get all THOSE fat cats off the biggest form of welfare there is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 05:45 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
you can opt out under certain conditions within the state. My wife is a government worker that does not pay into SS for her retirement. The money goes instead into a state retirement plan.
You can't really opt out. State and local alternate retirement systems are operated under so-called Section 218 Agreements with SSA that provide SS (and Medicare) coverage to those employees not eligible for the state or local system. Those agreements are by position, not by worker. If you were covered by SS, you could "opt out" by tranferring into a state/local-covered position, but not simply by changing your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 06:46 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Could you elaborate? I do remember reading that three counties in Texas opted out before Washington slammed the door. They've been putting their money into stocks and so forth, which has far outpaced SS.
No, the so-called Galveston Alternative invests in no stocks at all. It invests only in laddered fixed-rate annuity contracts, and the claimed numbers re its historical performance (which vary widely -- compare the chart above to this one) are biased in that it's early-year purchases were at a guaranteed fixed rate of 8.6%. You can't exactly walk out and get that kind of rate in today's market.

The Galveston model is also something of a Hurry-Up-And-Die approach. Benefits are front-loaded and include no cost-of-living adjustment. There are also no protections for divorced spouses in the Galveston plan, and its claimed favorable comparisons to SS in early-death scenarios are achieved by citing only the SS death benefit of $255. This leaves out the spousal and dependent survivor annuituies that make SS for an average worker the equivalent of a $400K insurance policy, a good deal more than the lump sum payouts expected in Galveston. SS survivor benefits are also inflation-adjusted, true full-life annuities.

Last edited by saganista; 09-29-2008 at 07:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
No one in the United States is denied quality healthcare. No one.

This is a misleading statement at best.. almost made me laugh.

Yes..if you walk into an emergency room and have no insurance, they have to treat you. Basically patch you up and send you on your way.

If you need surgery you can get it .. you have to leave a "deposit" down and amybe the hospital will set you on a "payment" plan.. with a bill that would be more money owed than on your house.

It's called Medical Care via Bankruptcy.

If you have nothing, they'll treat you and keep you comfortable.. but you won't get the latest and best treatment so that you can live.

Oh.. and if you HAVE insurance, your insurance company CAN deny your doctors claims.. they'll find any excuse not to pay.

Sure.. we have quality healthcare, if you have a wallet big enough to afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,765,860 times
Reputation: 1627
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
No, the so-called Galveston Alternative invests in no stocks at all. It invests only in laddered fixed-rate annuity contracts, and the claimed numbers re its historical performance (which vary widely -- compare the chart above to this one) are biased in that it's early-year purchases were at a guaranteed fixed rate of 8.6%. You can't exactly walk out and get that kind of rate in today's market.

The Galveston model is also something of a Hurry-Up-And-Die approach. Benefits are front-loaded and include no cost-of-living adjustment. There are also no protections for divorced spouses in the Galveston plan, and its claimed favorable comparisons to SS in early-death scenarios are achieved by citing only the SS death benefit of $255. This leaves out the spousal and dependent survivor annuituies that make SS for an average worker the equivalent of a $400K insurance policy, a good deal more than the lump sum payouts expected in Galveston. SS survivor benefits are also inflation-adjusted, true full-life annuities.
And which one is going broke?
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 > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top