Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Programs are funded with tax revenue. Please tell me you knew that.
Anyway, if you can't answer my simple question don't reply.
|
The programs are not collecting sufficient tax revenues to sustain them over the short term. Apparently you didn't know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310
With revenue increase... Once we dig completely out of the Bush recession tax revenue will increase...
|
The recession ended 4 years ago, but if you're expecting your employment levels to return to the way they were, they won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA
I do not understand why, after seniors have been demonized so much, the payroll tax on SS was reduced for the period of time that it was. All of the wailing has been about not having money to fund SS so, they reduce the tax on it.....HELLO ! Stupid, stupid !
|
Obama is an incompetent
topah.
In any event, you misunderstood the FICA Fiasco. Yes, the FICA payroll tax was temporarily reduced 2%, however the government reimbursed the 2% to the Social Security Administration out of the General Fund.
You lost money on that deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I guess you think that Social Security and Medicare are both entitlements.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
No medicare and SS are not entitlements...
|
42 USC § 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—
entitled past participle, past tense of en·ti·tle (Verb)
Verb
- Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
- Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.
I would properly instruct the both of you on the proper use of a dictionary, but I'm short on time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
One problem with social security is that while many people work 50 or more years and pay in huge amounts, all that is required is to work and pay in a mere 10 years. Imagine that!!! Pay in a minimal amount for only 10 short years and you're in.
|
And what's your point?
Are you suggesting that anyone who works 40 quarters -- 10 years -- receives a minimum monthly benefit?
Well, I suppose you're right, but don't forget that the minimum monthly benefit is $1.
Yes, One US Dollar.
Would you like a sedative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
I thought the SS benefit monthly amount was based on the amount of earnings accrued over the years.
|
Well, you thought wrong.
Do you know how to calculate your monthly benefit? This is
the formula (singular)....
To compute PIA: (1) 90% of AIME below the first bend point; plus (2) 32% of AIME in excess of the first bend point but not in excess of the second; plus (3) 15% of AIME in excess of the second bend point.
The first bend point changes annually. It is currently $767 but is projected to increase to $792 for 2013.
Step #1: Get your print-out from SSA showing your earnings.
Step #2: Adjust your earnings to the Wage Index. That converts all of your earnings to Year 20
NN Dollars. Suppose you made $9,259 in 1982. The Wage Index for 1982 is 2.9577 so then....
$9,259 * 2.9577 = $27,385 in 2012 Dollars (because the Wage Index is currently set to 2012).
Step #3: Take the 35 highest years (Social Security actually takes the 420 highest months) and average them.
1981 13,203
1982 13,972
1983 14,698
1984 15,610
1985 16,324
1986 16,860
1987 17,989
1988 18,932
1989 19,741
1990 20,715
------------------
Total $168,044
Now, divide by 35
$168,044 / 35 = $4,801
Problem? This person only worked 10 years? Yeah, so what? You divide by 35.
Now we take $4,801 and divide by 12 to get $400.10 rounded down to $400.
That is the average monthly earning.
Step #4: You get 90% of $400 or $360
Step #5: You get 32% of the of the amount greater than the 1st Bend Point of $767, but less than the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so....
$0 * 32% = $0
Add that to your 1st AIME: $360 + $0 = $360
Step #6: You get 15% in excess of the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so...
$0 * 15% = $0
Add that.....$360 + $0 = $360
And so there's your monthly Social Security benefit: $360/month.....party on.
Suppose someone worked for 20 years. You still divide by 35 because you are averaging the highest 35 years including the years they don't work, regardless of the reason they do not work (excepting those on Social Security Disability). So we divide by 35 and come up with $1,000.
1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30
2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.
$1,000 - $767 = $233 * 32% = $74.56 + $717.30 = $792 per month as a benefit.
Note that someone who has never earned more than minimum wage, and worked 40 hours per week for 35 years will receive $763/month at present.
Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $4,000 per month.....
1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30
2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.
$4,000 - $767 = $3,233 * 32% = $1034.56 + $717.30 = $1,752/month.
Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $6,000 per month....
1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30
2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.
$4,624 - $767 = $3,857 * 32% = $1234.24 + $717.30 = $1951.54
3] you get 15% in excess of the 2nd bend point....
$6,000 - $4,624 = $1,376 * 15% = $206.4 + $1,951.54 = $2,158
The maximum monthly benefit is $2,513. Just eye-balling it, if you earn more than $85,000 per year then you might be able to possibly make an argument that you are subsidizing low class people. I mean low income people (sorry).
I have available, for just $34.95 plus Shipping & Handling charged to your credit card in 3 easy installments,
The Black Heart Subsidy Medal, complete with automatic enrollment in the
Order of the Black Heart. This unique accoutrement is hand-crafted in Hunan Province China, by skilled artisans who are survivors of the Boxer Rebellion, and will make a stunningly fashionable statement on any outer-garment, letting everyone know you Subsidize.
If you order within the next 24 hours you will also receive the
"I Survived the Return of the Debt Ceiling Crisis" ball cap, an "
I Ain't Got No Social Security" coffee mug, a "
Cover-Up Benghazi Now" lapel pin, an "
Obmaney Raised My Taxes And All I Got Was A Drone Attack" t-shirt.
Plus as an extra special bonus, you will receive free your copy of the "
Citizen's Guide to Practicing Safe Subsidy" video available on DVD and Blu-Ray and approved by the US Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, and Homeland Security.
Those who take early retirement at age 62
never get 100% of their calculated benefits. Those born after 1960 who retire at 62 only get 70% of their calculated benefits for the rest of their lives (and their spouse only gets 35% of the benefits).
Glad we got that straightened out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Obviously those who paid in for over 40 years and had good incomes are not going to get what they could have gotten from a private retirement plan. They will not get anything close to what they should have gotten.
|
So?
Social Security is an insurance plan.
We don't put the cart before the horse, we don't count our chicks before they hatch, and we don't keep all of our eggs in one basket. We have an employer-based retirement scheme, our own personal retirement savings, and then Social Security as a back-up/insurance plan to provide basic subsistence income in case our employer plan or personal savings plan craps out.
That's just common sense.
All these people keep saying, "
Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda" but in the end, they got nothing to show for it. All these "financial wizard geniuses" and all they do is cry "
if it wasn't for Social Security." Well, if they were as smart as they claim they are, they could pay into Social Security and still reap $1 Million from their personal retirement investment plans.
BOSTON – Fidelity Investments®, the nation’s largest1 401(k) provider, today announced the average 401(k) balance reached $75,900...
Gosh....just like at all the freaking financial geniuses.
Not impressed...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Nationalized health care systems do it all the time? The US rations care more than any nation on earth with its current system, and you should know this.
|
You should now the proper definition of rationing, but you obviously don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
So, this conservative Republican wants death panels.
|
So do you. You want a universal health care system,
like Europe, well they have death panels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The reality is that if one wants to reduce Medicare costs the best way is to reduce medical costs, which have the same effect on private insurance. The best way to reduce those costs and provide better medical care is to institute single-payer universal health insurance -- just as other advanced countries have done with great success.
|
They haven't done it with success.
I'll let the German Minister of Health explain it to you.....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Health expenditures are one of the main expenditures of every country. Figure 10 shows health
expenditures as a percentage of the countries’ national income in 2006.
• In Romania, health expenditure amounts to 5% of GDP and in Poland 6,6%
• The Romanian expenditure levels are only half of those of Britain, Italy, Spain and Sweden
• In Austria and Switzerland almost 1 in every 10 Euros flows into the healthcare sector.
That chart shows Sweden spending a tad over 9% of GDP on health care.
Figure 10: Health Expenditure as % of GDP, Source: Eurostat
Eurostat - Data Explorer
Sweden's 2011 GDP was $538.13 Billion with a population of 9,453,000 which works out to $5,122 per person annually.
For those who still don't get it, the fact that you spend less does not mean it costs less....it just means you spent less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Thats the point. You are not supposed to collect. When social security was created they picked age 65 because most people didn't live to age 65. Life expectancy was around 60 back then. I'm not on a high horse. That is the way the system was designed, and it worked very well that way. But much like the AMT, it was never indexed, so now it has become something that it was never intended to be. 10-20 was supposed to be the outliers and now it is the norm. Unless we start raising the age, 40 years will no longer be the outliers. They will eventually be the norm.
|
You're a doctor? You ought to seriously consider giving your license back. You couldn't be more wrong. I don't know where you got your wild ideas, but you certainly didn't get them from any reputable source.
As any competent person knows,
the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy from age 65.
To prove you wrong, I submit as evidence Table V.A1.—Principal Demographic Assumptions, Calendar Years 1940-2090, showing that in 1940 there were 9,569 people over age 65 for each 100,000 Americans. As of 2011, there were 4,575 persons age 65 or older per 100,000 Americans.
That's about 50%
less.
Next to prove you wrong, I give you Table V.A3.—Period Life Expectancy which demonstrates two points to debunk your very false claims.
First, the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy age 65 and older, not life-expectancy from birth. And secondly, everyone can plainly see that in 1940 the life-expectancy over age 65 for a male was 11.9 years, and that in 2011 the life-expectancy was 17.7 years.
For those who don't get it, the metric we are examining is how long does a person live once they reach age 65: so 11.9 years means one lives until age 76.9 years and 17.7 means once lives to age 82.7 years.
What is the difference between 82.7 and 76.9 years?
5.8 years.
There you go. I just destroyed the idiotic "
raise the age" stupidity. That was already factored into the equation when they started Social Security, and when they first raise the FICA tax rate from 1% to 1.5% in 1949, they re-examined it in light of Penicillin and other medical advances, such as additional antibiotics.
The mistake they made is not planning on population growth to decline. They assumed population growth to be relatively static and that there would always be 20 workers for each retiree on Social Security. Nobody realized or understood that affluence leads to a decline in population growth. By the time the Ford Commission comes round in the 1970s, they'd pretty much figured that out.
People want to know why I'm vehemently against raising the age, now you know why, because it is not statistically significant, not to mention the fact that you will be negatively impacted. The only thing that will happens is you will force more people into taking early retirement at age 62 with reduced benefits or going on Social Security Disability at an earlier age drawing 100% of their benefits before converting their OADI benefit into the OASI benefit.
The life-expectancy for women at age 65 was 13.4 years in 1940 (a total of 78.4 years) and 20 years in 2011 (a total of 85 years), so the life-expectancy of women has increased by 6.6 years.
By the way you can find that information on Pages 92 and 98 of the 2012 Social Security Report......which apparently very few of you have even bothered to read --- yet you all flap your lips.
And another reason, in 1935 there were 30 States in the US that had a social security-like retirement program or pension plan (before FDR nationalized all of the State retirement plans). Many States set retirement at age 70, but others at age 65. The Railroad Retirement Act in the early-1930s chose age 65 as well.
Why?
Because actuarial studies showed age 65 to provide a well-managed system. If you review the legislative history of Social Security you'll see that life-expectancy from birth was never a factor.
As an MD you should know that, and the reason why. Did they have Penicillin in 1935 when Social Security was enacted? No, sorry, wrong answer....it would be another 10 years before Penicillin was available to Americans, and Penicillin did much to reduce infant mortality, and infant mortality is the reason no one in the right mind would have looked at life-expectancy from birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
The age was 62 not 65.
|
It was always age 65 for 100% retirement benefits. Age 62 was early retirement with benefits
permanently reduced by 25%.
For those whose normal retirement is 67 years for 100% benefits (those born 1960 and later) can retire early at 62 with a
permanent 35% reduction.
For everyone in between 65 and 67 years, if you retire early at 62 years your benefits are
permanently reduced on a sliding scale between 25% and 35%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Human beings live no longer now than they did 50,000 years ago. This mumbo jumbo propaganda about humans living longer has gotten so out of control some folks think by the year 2050 we will be living for 150 years. More humans now are able to survive to old age than in the past that is the difference.
|
You started out good then failed. Yes, for thousands and thousands of years the
mean life-span was 35 years, but
median life-span has always been 75+ years. Infant Mortality Rate. Once you survived past infancy, you could expect to live to 75 or older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Things where so barbaric for the elderly and the young for that matter pre SS that they were not expected to live to 60. Give them a benefit and they will, so they did, so what is the problem?
|
Another fail.
Things were not "barbaric." At the time FDR nationalized Social Security, 30 States had pension/social security plans for their ordinary citizens. You think FDR invented Social Security? Hell, no, when was governor of New York State he copied Social Social Security from another State and started it up in New York.
And Social Security did not allow people to live longer. Printosil allowed people to live longer. That was a sulfa drug used as an "antibiotic." Penicillin wasn't available to every American until 1946, and then from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, Streptomycin, Terramycin and Chloromycetin were developed tested and approved for use by the FDA.
You're really weak on your history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Raise the damn cap on SS ...
|
...will fund Social Security for 1 Month.
Somebody misled you big-time.
I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't raise the wage/salary cap for Social Security, I'm just saying it is not the MAGIC SILVER BULLET.
And it will only pay for 1 Month for a few more months and then it will only pay for 3 weeks and so on until about 2018 or so when it barely pays for 1 week.
It will help to extend the life of the OASDI Trust Fund from 2023-2024 to 2024-2025 so you [might] buy 1 year of time before your benefits are cut 28%-32%.
The damage to your economy will be mild to moderate. When you raise the FICA tax rate, the damage to your economy will be moderate to severe depending when they raise the FICA rate and how much they raise it. The idiot Obama screwed you all. Instead of giving a 2% temporary FICA tax cut he should have raised the FICA rate by at least 1.5%.
I'm in the process now of figuring out how many jobs you're going to lose. Pretty much looks like permanent 9%-10% unemployment from then on out.
Historically....
Mircea