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.
No, you gave an individual income number instead of a household income number, and failed to adjust for inflation. Furthermore, you stupidly believe the ridiculously low 2% compounded growth rate that even the article's author doesn't believe, as expressed in the footnotes.
I took the AVERAGE WAGE INDEX since 1965. I used real numbers, not fantasy wages like $60,000 in 1960. And when you cried for household, I multiplied that by 1.5, even though women didn't reach 50% of the average household until 1980. But when you do that, and divide by the two recipients, you reduce the per person contribution. I gave you everything you wanted. You just want to base the number on huge wages and huge interest. You want to say the average Medicare recipient contributed $1.5 MILLION and that is a joke. Even if you increased the interest on the $122,000 number the article used to something like 5%, you don't get $1.5 Million.
There is no indication that the author doesn't believe 2%, they are simply being transparent. However, even if you use 5%, you aren't going to get $1.5 Million. That's what you want to say. You want to say a Medicare recipient contributed $1.5 Million when they use $122,000.
The S&P 500 annual return on investment was indeed 11% on average for those years. And even the very low-risk 10-year T Bonds yielded 6.7%. I posted the link, though NYU Stern adjusts the S&P 500 to 9.84%, which is still MUCH more than 2%.
Quote:
And also wants to use an average household income of $60,0000 all the way back to the 60s.
What do you not understand about splitting the different between the inflation adjusted $40,000 and $80,000 annual mean household income range from 1960 to 2010?
Exactly. Both are. They just don't want to admit it.
that is why many have and continued to call for reform of all entitlements. But certainly Medicare will be one of easiest to solved with SS being even easier. I mean the present system of ACA in which going by just the normal standard of pre-ACA cost to companies of 13k per employee AVERAGE per year shows the real cost to subsidize some and to make others pay more. Medicare at least is a system where worker pays all life until 65 and then pays sometimes as much as many under ACA. Certainly more than anyone in Medicaid.
And also wants to use an average household income of $60,0000 all the way back to the 60s.
And based on that, comes up with a number of $1.5 MILLION for Medicare alone. Which the creators of these charts would openly point and laugh at.
I think the poster just likes to use the inflated numbers because they are mad that they were born after 1959 and Paul Ryan wants to give them a voucher toward private insurance.
11% would be stock market returns. Up until the early 2000's my financial analyst used 10% as a conservative estimate. He's more cautious now. Had the government invested what was paid in to SS and medicare in the stock market, we would not have problem now. Unfortunately, they chose to simply loan the money to other departments and it was spent. Hence the shortfall. The money wasn't invested as it should have been.
I for one would be more than happy to have the government simply return to me what I paid in plus what my employers paid in plus interest using the average interest for a passbook account for the last 40 years. This is the money that was supposed to be set aside for me when I retired. The government denied me the right to invest it myself. Then failed to invest it for me. It would have more than taken care of me if they had invested it. One thing the numbers being thrown around here don't account for is the number of people who pay into the system but never draw a check. I'm 55 and know if half a dozen classmates who are already dead. If they left behind a spouse who doesn't have their own SS, they will collect half.
The generation that got more out than they paid in are the parents of the baby boomers. They paid in next to nothing but collected full benefits. My generation has paid into the system. It's unfortunate the money wasn't taken care of. I don't know what the government is going to do but there are a lot of people who counted on SS and medicare when they retire. Perhaps they'll be counting on welfare and Medicaid instead or will simply work until they die.
Dh is currently drawing SS. He will have to draw for 8 years before he's used up his and his employers contribution not counting interest. Medicare is another story. He was told he had to go on medicare at 65 or risk never being able to go on it even though he can be insured through my employer. Government stupidity at it's finest.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 03-21-2015 at 07:28 PM..
Most Medicare recipients don't realize the huge unfunded benefits they have and will receive.
Many with Medicare feel that they have paid in what is due, and what will cover their HC needs after age 65. Esp as they pay yearlies, monthlies, copays and deductibles. Whereas they see Obamacare as providing subsidies where the beneficiary has not paid in.
Both systems are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and deficit spending.
The ACA will become an even more under funded social program over the years as more and more people get on the govt doll.
The numbers for the ACA program currently don't add up long term. It was supposed to be a 900 billion dollar program. You don't even hear that number anymore. They spin it so much even with the medicaid expansion opt out. They claim its a 100 billion dollars savings based on the revised 1.4 trillion dollar CBO projection that got revised to 1.3 trillion.
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.
If you gave that back to them and said, "Here you go, go shop and pay for your own health care for the rest of your lives", they'd be lucky if that money lasted 10 years. A 65 year old with a bad hip, heart trouble and high blood pressure is going to be lucky to find a plan for $1000 a month. If they have a serious health event, it won't last five or ten years. Then what happens to the 70 year old with no health coverage?
Medicare recipients are expecting those younger than they are to pay for them and to pay for all their operations, Medicare Part D, all of it for 25 or 30 years. Yet they are calling those younger and still working, "takers and thieves" and Obamacare as socialism. This is convenient, considering these same working people are paying for this older generation.
I receive no Obamacare benefits due to my income. But I don't resent those who do because I want everyone to have health coverage. What I'm seeing though, is the huge hypocrisy by Medicare recipients who paid very little in comparison to the very expensive benefits they get. Remember, Medicare recipients paid nothing when it began. They qualified based on age alone.
It would be interesting to see a 75 year old shopping for health coverage on the open market. Remember with Republicans wanted to voucherize Medicare? I was against it because I worried for the elderly. But the elderly are worried about you, only themselves. So let's end it, voucherize it, do whatever it takes to put everyone on an even playing field. If socialism is bad, it's bad for everyone.
Then, I guess, we need to look at ending public education too because everyone pays for schools and not everyone has children.
what a way to run a business! 30$$ billion down the drain....who is going to pay for medicare? Let's raise the tax to make up for colossal government waste. Hey, not a problem, I could see me wasting 30 billion $$$, so sure let's pay more because we are so stupid.
"According to Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute, experts estimate that "abuses of Medicaid (alone) eat up at least 10 percent of the program’s total cost nationwide -- a waste of $30 billion a year."
Look at the Mean Household Income line. More years are aboe $60,000 than below.
I saw your chart, rolled my eyes and used the the government's numbers as determined by the IRS, which is called the Average Wage Index http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Guess what else I rolled my eyes at? Your calculation that the average Medicare recipient contributed $1.5 Million dollars.
I know, I know, give you a few minutes and Google and you'll tell me the average Medicare recipient contributed $11 billiondy dollars.
I saw your chart, rolled my eyes and used the the government's numbers as determined by the IRS, which is called the Average Wage Index National Average Wage Index
Those aren't adjusted for inflation.
Quote:
Guess what else I rolled my eyes at? Your calculation that the average Medicare recipient contributed $1.5 Million dollars.
I didn't say the average Medicare recipients contributed $1.5 million doallrs per household. I said that's the value of their contributions after 43 years of compounded growth. I even posted a link to a compound savings calculator for you.
Those aren't adjusted for inflation.
I didn't say the average Medicare recipients contributed $1.5 million doallrs per household. I said that's the value of their contributions after 43 years of compounded growth. I even posted a link to a compound savings calculator for you.
You don't understanding compounded growth, do you?
The Average Wage Index is not adjusted for inflation. However, the charts on the links you provided were. And they even gave credit for the employer's contribution. And they gave interest which - you can increase but 11% is higher than even the links you provided. Plus, you are using the 11% for all years which is a complete joke and you know it.
Tell you what. You want a higher interest rate? That article said the average Medicare recipient gets three times as much as they contributed. Lets credit you with a higher interest and make it double.
Does that make it better for you? That the average Medicare recipient gets twice as much as they contributed instead of three times? Even though the source you cited doesn't agree with you and says your contribution is less?
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.
compounded growth rate that even the article's author doesn't believe, as expressed in the footnotes.
