U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 09-07-2011, 09:52 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,522 posts, read 62,235,289 times
Reputation: 32222

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I recently read an analysis from one of the universities about what would be needed to ensure long term Social Security benefits....
SSA has never really been the problem.

Quote:
As far as Medicare goes...
It has really never NOT been a problem.
Advances in healthcare technology and longevity come at a price no one can afford.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2011, 06:35 AM
 
8,088 posts, read 4,424,278 times
Reputation: 3074
I appreciate the civility. No point in disagreeing or arguing fine points for the sake of proving one right and one wrong. Moving on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
hmmm...
Anything I've ever read about end life health care costs (and my own direct personal experience too) indicates the increase in health care costs at end of life is due to poor communication by Dad and Mom with their family about what the Dr's should do for them in a given circumstance posed against the uninformed family's guilt...
while the Dr's are left by professional standards to do what (oh so very expensive) treatments they have available.

I didn't see this.
Perhaps you could point that out better?

Or did you mean this:


If so... maybe it's just a philosophical difference but I don't accept your conclusion at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 16,490,329 times
Reputation: 8778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Are you even aware that there is a cap on the taxes because there is a corresponding cap on the benefits? So where do you come up with this "fair share" baloney? Already, the higher wage earners receive a smaller percentage of their taxes back in benefits than the lower wage earners; thus, the higher earners are subsidizing the lower earners. If you wish to increase this subsidy even further by removing the FICA tax cap without also removing the benefit cap, then you should say so and that would be an honest argument. But this business about "fair share" is really dishonest because it gives a totally erroneous impression.
It is my understanding that high earners benefit more, proportionately, from what they contribute than most of the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 09:41 PM
 
10,819 posts, read 8,071,380 times
Reputation: 17034
Biscuitpop and I are squarely in the 'high earner' category and we have no complaints about receiving proportionately (ie, %-wise) way less than we paid in. That's because our parents (his mother, my mother, my father) were in the 'low earner' group and received SS benefits during their retirement years.

Our view has always been when all is said and done, we'll have received far more from SS than we paid in, because of the benefits it gave our parents. If not for SS, we would have had to support our elderly parents. Instead, we only subsidized them. So even tho we've not yet begun to receive our own SS checks, we've already rec'd more than we paid in for 4 decades. It's a huge bonus that our parents *felt* independent of us. If we had been directly financially supporting them they would have felt like they were a burden on us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 09:49 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,522 posts, read 62,235,289 times
Reputation: 32222
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
It is my understanding that high earners benefit more, proportionately, from what they contribute than most of the population.
hmmm.
High earners get more per month than low(er) earners certainly, but the people who live the longest (and by that collect for the longest time) are collecting the most... making this longevity group the ones who "benefit more, proportionately, from what they contribute than most of the population".

An incidental effect of this, as opposed to a structural design of the system, is that high earners and their spouses will tend to have had better medical care over their lifetime than low(er) earners which very likely contributes to them living longer.

Is this what you are referring to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 16,490,329 times
Reputation: 8778
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
hmmm.
High earners get more per month than low(er) earners certainly, but the people who live the longest (and by that collect for the longest time) are collecting the most... making this longevity group the ones who "benefit more, proportionately, from what they contribute than most of the population".

An incidental effect of this, as opposed to a structural design of the system, is that high earners and their spouses will tend to have had better medical care over their lifetime than low(er) earners which very likely contributes to them living longer.

Is this what you are referring to?
You are so articulate. Yes. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 10:48 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,989,888 times
Reputation: 18050
Often lifestyle with genes being the same can mean that even with top medcial the rich often develop heart problems etc and die sooner. That is why you seldom see a really rich person being o the top age list in life span.Once they develop seroius heatlth probelms the rich then have a advantage but not overall in lifestyle prevention of the killers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2011, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,754,097 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
It is my understanding that high earners benefit more, proportionately, from what they contribute than most of the population.
Your understanding is not correct, the statements about the greater longevity of high wage earners by other posters notwithstanding. Just how much extra longevity do you suppose it would take to overcome the formulas for the determination of Social Security retirement benefits at full retirement age which follow?

Your lifetime earnings for the highest 35 years are indexed for inflation and averaged, then multiplied as follows:

Monthly earnings of $1 to $749 are multiplied by 90%.
The next $3,768 are multiplied by 32%.
The remainder (up to the benefits cap) are multiplied by 15%.

This represents a pretty severe skewing of the benefits in favor of lower wage earners. I am not arguing that this skewing is good, bad, or indifferent, as that would be a long and complex discussion more suitable for a separate thread. I am just stating the facts, for which you don't have to take my word; you can check for yourself at www.socialsecurity.gov.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2011, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 16,490,329 times
Reputation: 8778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Your understanding is not correct, the statements about the greater longevity of high wage earners by other posters notwithstanding. Just how much extra longevity do you suppose it would take to overcome the formulas for the determination of Social Security retirement benefits at full retirement age which follow?

Your lifetime earnings for the highest 35 years are indexed for inflation and averaged, then multiplied as follows:

Monthly earnings of $1 to $749 are multiplied by 90%.
The next $3,768 are multiplied by 32%.
The remainder (up to the benefits cap) are multiplied by 15%.

This represents a pretty severe skewing of the benefits in favor of lower wage earners. I am not arguing that this skewing is good, bad, or indifferent, as that would be a long and complex discussion more suitable for a separate thread. I am just stating the facts, for which you don't have to take my word; you can check for yourself at www.socialsecurity.gov.
Thanks. Ok, I see your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2011, 02:10 PM
 
29,788 posts, read 34,889,516 times
Reputation: 11715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Actually he does not. He pays himself a salary of $100K, and of that he pays no income taxes at all. He said so himself. He said that there are people in his office who work under him who pay more than him. But you can bet his corporation does not pay what I pay.

I don't want to the give the feds my money, they take it from me. I really don't have a lot of choice here.

The tax rates should not necessarily be lower for me and warren. They should be the same for me and warren and his corporation.
Money is taxed differently based on the source of it. Just with individuals we have different taxes for earned, capital gains, dividend, interest etc. Are you suggesting they all be taxed the same? Would you lower the tax brackets for wages for some and raise them for others? Would that new amount be equal to the tax rate on capital gains? Would capital gains be taxed at the same rate which could be higher or lower than it currently is? Should money be taxed twice? Once when earned and again when invested at the same rate?
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 > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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