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.
You really can't admit it, can you? I show you the real average wage index and you can't admit you're wrong.
You didn't adjust for inflation, even after I linked the Stanford chart for you, and you've failed to compound growth. You've made 2 major mathematical mistakes. No one believes your ridiculously underinformed opinions.
Again, that's why I used mean household income instead of just doubling the individual wage. It accounts for less working women than men.
False. If that were true, the historic mean household income would be the same as a single individual's wage. It's not.
False premise and fake number, as I've already shown.
Look, it's obvious to everyone but you that a lot of this is going right over your head and you're just lashing out with made up stuff.
Made up? You used a $60,000 household income as the average all the way to 1960. It's a complete lie.
So let's say 50% of women were working in 1965, which they were not. Giving you the hugest benefit of the doubt, that would mean a combined average income of $32,619 for a couple and a combined contribution of $23,175. for two people. That makes the Medicare contribution per person $11,587.
That $11,587. could be multiplied ten times and it wouldn't touch the costs of the average Medicare recipient over 20 to 30 years. Reality bites.
Not sure why you care since you know you're getting a Paul Ryan voucher.
Made up? You used a $60,000 household income as the average all the way to 1960. It's a complete lie.
What about adjusting for inflation do you not understand? Do I need to post the link to the Stanford chart again for you?
And stop posting your ridiculously fake numbers. No one believes the crap you spew. Furthermore, your complete lack of undertanding of which you speak completely negates any point you're trying to make.
Made up? You used a $60,000 household income as the average all the way to 1960.
It's the average of the mean household income adjusted for inflation between 1960 and 2010. I linked the chart. You just can't understand or handle facts, and are clearly mathematically and financially illiterate.
What about adjusting for inflation do you not understand? Do I need to post the link to the Stanford chart again for you?
And stop posting your ridiculously fake numbers. No one believes the crap you spew. Furthermore, your complete lack of undertanding of which you speak completely negates any point you're trying to make.
Still sore eh? You didn't pay squat into Medicare. Those fake numbers are the actual government numbers for the Average Wage Index since 1965. Your household income only weakened your argument. I did the math for you, you just don't like reality when it's put in front of you. We're down to an $11K contribution for each Medicare recipient. And we're supposed to use that paltry amount to pay for their coverage for 20 or 30 years.
Hey, let's use your own link instead: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-paid-what-yo/
The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in.
Still sore eh? You didn't pay squat into Medicare. Those fake numbers are the actual government numbers for the Average Wage Index since 1965. Your household income only weakened your argument. I did the math for you, you just don't like reality when it's put in front of you. We're down to an $11K contribution for each Medicare recipient. And we're supposed to use that paltry amount to pay for their coverage for 20 or 30 years.
Hey, let's use your own link instead: Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact
The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in.
I'm going to keep hammering at this as long as you yammer. What would be the interest earned on that $122,000? Heck, even in a passbook savings account it would be quite a bit, especially in the 1990s. Please compute and tell us.
While Medicare recipients paid into the program, their contributions are no where near the level of benefits they are receiving. If you gave them the highest possible credit for the contributions they made, say $3000 per year for 50 years, that would equal $150,000 and they didn't come anywhere near contributing that much.
Medicare is, indeed, paid for by those earning a paycheck. Medicare would be just fine and solvent if the Feds had kept their hands out of the till to steal the $'s there. This is supposed to be a restricted account. IOU's, as I have said before, do NOT earn interest!
In addition, Medicare should only be used by those who paid into it, as should Social Security that has the same "theft" problem in addition to being paid to many who never paid into that fund.
Quote:
Then, I guess, we need to look at ending public education too because everyone pays for schools and not everyone has children.
Apples and oranges. Public Education is paid by the local tax payers...not the Federal Government...as it should be. Actually the Fed Department of Education should be abolished. Education should be in the hands of only the local School Boards with very little overlook by each State.
I'm going to keep hammering at this as long as you yammer. What would be the interest earned on that $122,000? Heck, even in a passbook savings account it would be quite a bit, especially in the 1990s. Please compute and tell us.
To make the final amounts comparable to what might have been done with the tax money had it been invested privately, the institute adjusted all dollar figures at 2 percentage points above the rate of inflation. (The authors note that different assumptions for long-term returns on investment would change the results.)
Earlier this week, we published a story and several charts showing that average government spending on each elderly person is $26,355, compared to $11,822 for each child.
The article is responding to retirees who complained about the numbers and they go into the details.
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.
Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in.
Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in.
I'm going to keep hammering at this as long as you yammer. What would be the interest earned on that $122,000? Heck, even in a passbook savings account it would be quite a bit, especially in the 1990s. Please compute and tell us.
Not much. You're certainly not going to triple your money. CD's in the '90's paid in the 3-5% range.
But that is all an illusion. As are most of the arguments made here. Our Medicare tax money is not sequestered.
Medicare is more like a defined benefit plan, essentially guaranteed, and it makes little difference what anyone 'puts in'. Because for the most part payroll taxes are like ordinary Federal income taxes, although of course more regressive. The money taken out of our checks for FICA does not specifically go to our personal SS and Medicare accounts, and then paid back to us. Most of the money paid out comes from the General Fund.
So your argument applies to all Federal taxes paid over one's life. Not just Medicare. We all lose the time benefits of all that money we pay in. But then we get back all sorts of essentially guaranteed defined benefits from our Federal Gov't. Medicare is but one of those benefits.
And these guarantees are very important. Esp as it concerns SS and Medicare. Our personal investments are generally not guaranteed.
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.
