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.
So you're telling me that if my house burns down my home owners won't pay if I have what they deem to be too much money in the bank? Or my health insurance won't pay for my mammogram because I can afford to pay for it myself? Since when does insurance require means testing? Only ENTITLEMENT programs require means testing.
Quote:
I don't really see how they can do that. One of the reasons for spousal support was to take into consideration that many women refrained from working outside the home.
Which was their choice. We all make choices and deal with the consequences of those. If a woman didn't work outside of the home, even more reason to put more money away for retirement. Why should the rest of us have to carry the burden of their choice?
Quote:
I don't know if you read the report or not, but Social Security only recommends cutting benefits once the Trust Fund is dissolved. That won't happen before 2025.
Right about the time I'm planning on retirement.
Quote:
It is not "stealing." Your paying weekly FICA premiums into an insurance plan, not your own personal private retirement account.
And when I pay premiums into my whole life insurance, and they tell me that they will cover me for "X" dollars by sending me little statements in the mail every year for 30 years, I have a reasonable expectation that they won't suddenly be allowed to change the terms of the plan I've been paying into for my entire working life just as I retire because suddenly they determine I've got enough money and don't need the fund I've been building for years. If SS becomes means tested, that's exactly what the government will be doing.
Quote:
If you have a pension plan or a retirement plan that will provide you with at least $30,156 then you can handle having your Social Security reduced by 33%.
If you have a pension plan that gives you $30,156/year, plus a personal savings plan that gives you $30,156/year then you can stand to have your Social Security benefits cut by 66%.
And you can scale it based on that if you earned less.
That's how I would do it.
Means-testing...
Mircea
Why should I get less than the guy down the street because I saved my money instead of driving luxury vehicles and having every electronic gadget known to man? The government has told me for years how much to expect in retirement. Why should I then get that taken away because I DID THE RIGHT THING AND SAVED?
Frankly when it comes to retirement, like you said, people can shack up with relatives or move to other areas with a lower cost of living. Since when is it my responsibility to cover their asses because they CHOSE to not cover their own? We all make choices, some of us will have a harder time living with the consequences of our actions than others. And that's how it should be.
So you're telling me that if my house burns down my home owners won't pay if I have what they deem to be too much money in the bank? Or my health insurance won't pay for my mammogram because I can afford to pay for it myself? Since when does insurance require means testing? Only ENTITLEMENT programs require means testing.
No, he's saying that you only get a settlement if your house burns down.
The policyholders who still have houses don't get a dime.
Many pay in, a few get money out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
Why should I get less than the guy down the street because I saved my money instead of driving luxury vehicles and having every electronic gadget known to man? The government has told me for years how much to expect in retirement. Why should I then get that taken away because I DID THE RIGHT THING AND SAVED?
Frankly when it comes to retirement, like you said, people can shack up with relatives or move to other areas with a lower cost of living. Since when is it my responsibility to cover their asses because they CHOSE to not cover their own? We all make choices, some of us will have a harder time living with the consequences of our actions than others. And that's how it should be.
The system sucks.
As a voter, you should take some responsibility for that.
What would you like to do?
No, he's saying that you only get a settlement if your house burns down.
The policyholders who still have houses don't get a dime.
Many pay in, a few get money out.
But we're not talking about houses, we're talking about retirement income. When we retire, we all stop getting a salary. So once that happens, why should some get a SS check while others don't, even though none get a salary any longer?
Quote:
The system sucks.
As a voter, you should take some responsibility for that.
What would you like to do?
Cut back on payouts by an even percentage across the board so that everyone will have a chance at a piece of the pot, including those who did the right thing and worked and saved through their lifetime. I'd gladly give up 50% of what they've been telling me all along that I'd be getting, as long as everyone else also had to give up their 50%.
So you're telling me that if my house burns down my home owners won't pay if I have what they deem to be too much money in the bank? Or my health insurance won't pay for my mammogram because I can afford to pay for it myself? Since when does insurance require means testing? Only ENTITLEMENT programs require means testing.
I don't think you understand the analogy very well, but that's my fault for not explaining it better.
If you have a $30,000 car, and you suffer $5,000 in damages, the insurance company pays $5,000 to you, not $30,000.
Likewise, if you have a $150,000 home and you suffer $25,000 in damage from fire, tornado or flood, the insurance company pays you $25,000 and not $150,000.
Right?
In other words, the insurance company only pays you what you need, and nothing more.
Ideally, means-testing in Social Security would adopt the same principle, paying only what you need, and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
Which was their choice. We all make choices and deal with the consequences of those. If a woman didn't work outside of the home, even more reason to put more money away for retirement. Why should the rest of us have to carry the burden of their choice?
That is not an accurate assessment of the situation, and it ignores the facts.
Society (as a whole) pressured women to stay in the home and raise children. Perhaps I should also mention that women could not work, because there were no jobs for them to work. There were barely enough jobs for men to work, and now you want to add several million women to the work force which would do what? Depress wages, since wages are a function of Supply & Demand. So, great, everyone is working at lower wages (which is part of your problems now -- way too many workers).
If we, as a society, tell women, "You're dirty, naughty and evil for refusing to stay home and raise your children" then we cannot at the same time condemn women for not working and not saving money that they didn't earn because we told them they shouldn't work.
We, as a society, agreed to bear this cost, because we, as a society, felt that it was more important, even critical to the future survival of the US, that women should stay at home and raise the children.
Whether or not we as a society were correct or mostly correct in our thinking is irrelevant, as that is water under the bridge. It happened, and we cannot "REDO FROM START."
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
Right about the time I'm planning on retirement.
I can't help you there. The reality is that Social Security is a political hot potato that no one wants to touch. Worse than that, the US is so divided ideologically that there is no possible way to achieve a consensus on what must be done. We cannot even obtain a consensus that there is a problem, in spite of my most heroic efforts to demonstrate using real world 6th Grade Math there is most definitely a cash flow problem. The most likely scenario is that no one will do anything, until the whole program is on the verge of collapse. Then they will crow-bar together a heap of garbage and ram it down everyone's throats, and the people will gladly accept the crumb that is thrown to them by those On High, because, well, you know, something is better than nothing at all, right?
That's how it usually works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
And when I pay premiums into my whole life insurance, and they tell me that they will cover me for "X" dollars by sending me little statements in the mail every year for 30 years, I have a reasonable expectation that they won't suddenly be allowed to change the terms of the plan I've been paying into for my entire working life just as I retire because suddenly they determine I've got enough money and don't need the fund I've been building for years. If SS becomes means tested, that's exactly what the government will be doing.
And what's wrong with that?
The purpose of Social Security is not to guarantee that you spend your retirement cruising the Mediterranean, dining in the Greek Isles and gambling at the casinos in Monaco.
Social Security is simply a last resort measure to keep you from sleeping under a bridge or roaming the streets as a bag lady.
It's akin to unemployment or worker's compensation insurance. You pay into unemployment insurance (actually your employer does on your behalf) and if you need it, it's there. If you don't need it, you never benefit from it and you never get a refund on the premiums you paid.
Same with worker's compensation. Either you, or your employer, or both of you pay the premiums. If you need it, it's there. If you don't need it, you never benefit from it and never get a refund on your premiums.
Social Security should be treated in exactly the same way: there if you need it, but a lesser benefit if you don't.
Social Security will ultimately fail. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Sure, I know people read the annual reports, but Social Security is not at all realistic in their assumptions.
The Social Security Administration makes the fantastical and farcical claims that the US economy will grow at a rate of 4.6% per year for the Low Cost Model and 6.4% per year for the High Cost Model.
That is outrageous.
In the history of the world, no post-Industrialized nation has ever had their economy grow at a rate of 6.4% for 73 consecutive years.
No post-Industrialized nation has ever had their economy grow at 4.6% for 73 consecutive years.
Social Security's revenue assumptions through the year 2085 are based on those grotesquely flawed GDP growth rates.
The decade of the 1960s is an aberration due to the fact that the US did not become fully (100%) industrialized until the mid-1960s (agriculture is always the last economic sector to completely industrialize).
As you can see, from 1970 through 2000, your economy grew at a steady rate of 3+% and that is very good for a post-Industrialized nation, but it is not 4.6% and it most certainly is not 6.4%.
As sure as I am sitting here, I guarantee you that Social Security will not last beyond 2040. The revenues that Social Security think they will get will never materialize, because they are based on bogus GDP estimates.
You can bet your life on that.
When you recalcuate using the spread that I used (Low = 2.28% GDP and High = 3.30% annually) you can clearly see that.
Well, heck, I'll show rather than tell.
Between 2012 and 2040, Social Security claims the aggregate GDP will be
$1,262,735 Billion (that is $1,262,735,000,000,000 or $1.2 QUADRILLION).
Social Security claims a revenue rate of 11.5%. Fair enough.
That equals:
$145,214 Billion
What I'm claiming is that the aggregate GDP (at an average of 2.89% annually) over the same period will only be:
In other words, a $63 TRILLION short-fall by the time the year 2040 rolls around. You ain't got it. Sorry. You just ain't got it. By the time 2085 rolls around, the short-fall is far worse.
This is what I've been trying to get people to understand. Social Security is done; over; dead; it is an ex-Social Welfare Program. Your country will not be able to come up with $63 TRILLION over the next 28 years. Do the math, as that comes to an average of $2.25 TRILLION per year.
And then there's Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, HUD, and everyone wants some kind of national health care program. It just boggles my mind that there's some part of "You ain't got the money" that people don't understand. Maybe when the US becomes Greece, people will figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
Why should I get less than the guy down the street because I saved my money instead of driving luxury vehicles and having every electronic gadget known to man? The government has told me for years how much to expect in retirement. Why should I then get that taken away because I DID THE RIGHT THING AND SAVED?
Because you don't need the money.
Like I said before, it isn't your own personal private savings account. It's just a hedge in the event your life goes to hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
Frankly when it comes to retirement, like you said, people can shack up with relatives or move to other areas with a lower cost of living. Since when is it my responsibility to cover their asses because they CHOSE to not cover their own? We all make choices, some of us will have a harder time living with the consequences of our actions than others. And that's how it should be.
Well, speaking as the ultra-conservative that I am, they are your family. Conservatives make good communists, because they (the true conservatives) are focused on family and community. Family and community is the glue that holds any country together.
If people would take care of their family and community, you could stop throwing away $500 Billion per year on nothing, and keep that money in your pocket. I'm sure the government would be upset that it can no longer meddle, but it ought not being meddling in the first place.
Actually, I think the purpose of Social security is to give me what they told me they would, based upon my earnings over the years, if I started drawing it at a certain age. And they do!
Guess that's why I don't agonize over it, over-analyze it or make predictions that may or may not have some basis in fact and may or may not ever occur. I'm content to simply enjoy it.
I don't think you understand the analogy very well, but that's my fault for not explaining it better.
If you have a $30,000 car, and you suffer $5,000 in damages, the insurance company pays $5,000 to you, not $30,000.
Likewise, if you have a $150,000 home and you suffer $25,000 in damage from fire, tornado or flood, the insurance company pays you $25,000 and not $150,000.
Right?
In other words, the insurance company only pays you what you need, and nothing more.
Ideally, means-testing in Social Security would adopt the same principle, paying only what you need, and nothing more.
That is not an accurate assessment of the situation, and it ignores the facts.
Society (as a whole) pressured women to stay in the home and raise children. Perhaps I should also mention that women could not work, because there were no jobs for them to work. There were barely enough jobs for men to work, and now you want to add several million women to the work force which would do what? Depress wages, since wages are a function of Supply & Demand. So, great, everyone is working at lower wages (which is part of your problems now -- way too many workers).
If we, as a society, tell women, "You're dirty, naughty and evil for refusing to stay home and raise your children" then we cannot at the same time condemn women for not working and not saving money that they didn't earn because we told them they shouldn't work.
We, as a society, agreed to bear this cost, because we, as a society, felt that it was more important, even critical to the future survival of the US, that women should stay at home and raise the children.
Whether or not we as a society were correct or mostly correct in our thinking is irrelevant, as that is water under the bridge. It happened, and we cannot "REDO FROM START."
I can't help you there. The reality is that Social Security is a political hot potato that no one wants to touch. Worse than that, the US is so divided ideologically that there is no possible way to achieve a consensus on what must be done. We cannot even obtain a consensus that there is a problem, in spite of my most heroic efforts to demonstrate using real world 6th Grade Math there is most definitely a cash flow problem. The most likely scenario is that no one will do anything, until the whole program is on the verge of collapse. Then they will crow-bar together a heap of garbage and ram it down everyone's throats, and the people will gladly accept the crumb that is thrown to them by those On High, because, well, you know, something is better than nothing at all, right?
That's how it usually works.
And what's wrong with that?
The purpose of Social Security is not to guarantee that you spend your retirement cruising the Mediterranean, dining in the Greek Isles and gambling at the casinos in Monaco.
Social Security is simply a last resort measure to keep you from sleeping under a bridge or roaming the streets as a bag lady.
It's akin to unemployment or worker's compensation insurance. You pay into unemployment insurance (actually your employer does on your behalf) and if you need it, it's there. If you don't need it, you never benefit from it and you never get a refund on the premiums you paid.
Same with worker's compensation. Either you, or your employer, or both of you pay the premiums. If you need it, it's there. If you don't need it, you never benefit from it and never get a refund on your premiums.
Social Security should be treated in exactly the same way: there if you need it, but a lesser benefit if you don't.
Social Security will ultimately fail. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Sure, I know people read the annual reports, but Social Security is not at all realistic in their assumptions.
The Social Security Administration makes the fantastical and farcical claims that the US economy will grow at a rate of 4.6% per year for the Low Cost Model and 6.4% per year for the High Cost Model.
That is outrageous.
In the history of the world, no post-Industrialized nation has ever had their economy grow at a rate of 6.4% for 73 consecutive years.
No post-Industrialized nation has ever had their economy grow at 4.6% for 73 consecutive years.
Social Security's revenue assumptions through the year 2085 are based on those grotesquely flawed GDP growth rates.
The decade of the 1960s is an aberration due to the fact that the US did not become fully (100%) industrialized until the mid-1960s (agriculture is always the last economic sector to completely industrialize).
As you can see, from 1970 through 2000, your economy grew at a steady rate of 3+% and that is very good for a post-Industrialized nation, but it is not 4.6% and it most certainly is not 6.4%.
As sure as I am sitting here, I guarantee you that Social Security will not last beyond 2040. The revenues that Social Security think they will get will never materialize, because they are based on bogus GDP estimates.
You can bet your life on that.
When you recalcuate using the spread that I used (Low = 2.28% GDP and High = 3.30% annually) you can clearly see that.
Well, heck, I'll show rather than tell.
Between 2012 and 2040, Social Security claims the aggregate GDP will be
$1,262,735 Billion (that is $1,262,735,000,000,000 or $1.2 QUADRILLION).
Social Security claims a revenue rate of 11.5%. Fair enough.
That equals:
$145,214 Billion
What I'm claiming is that the aggregate GDP (at an average of 2.89% annually) over the same period will only be:
In other words, a $63 TRILLION short-fall by the time the year 2040 rolls around. You ain't got it. Sorry. You just ain't got it. By the time 2085 rolls around, the short-fall is far worse.
This is what I've been trying to get people to understand. Social Security is done; over; dead; it is an ex-Social Welfare Program. Your country will not be able to come up with $63 TRILLION over the next 28 years. Do the math, as that comes to an average of $2.25 TRILLION per year.
And then there's Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, HUD, and everyone wants some kind of national health care program. It just boggles my mind that there's some part of "You ain't got the money" that people don't understand. Maybe when the US becomes Greece, people will figure it out.
Because you don't need the money.
Like I said before, it isn't your own personal private savings account. It's just a hedge in the event your life goes to hell.
Well, speaking as the ultra-conservative that I am, they are your family. Conservatives make good communists, because they (the true conservatives) are focused on family and community. Family and community is the glue that holds any country together.
If people would take care of their family and community, you could stop throwing away $500 Billion per year on nothing, and keep that money in your pocket. I'm sure the government would be upset that it can no longer meddle, but it ought not being meddling in the first place.
Analyzing...
Mircea
Who is to say what I need? I have worked hard to have a certain lifestyle. Now I don't care if someone else lives in a box, if that meets their needs than so be it. But my lifestyle is such that I have certain needs, and who is to say what they might or might not be.
Every January for 30-some years I've gotten a mailer from SS telling me that they will send me "X" every month when I retire. Instead of leaving the workforce, I've continued to work so that we can bank my paycheck towards a comfortable retirement. And you're telling me it's OK that the government will reward those who made stupid decisions--by the way, my mom worked f/t as an RN while we were kids, so BS that there were no jobs and women weren't able to find work--while punishing those who were responsible? What type of BS example is that setting?
So now the government is saying, "Sorry, we lied, we're going to give your neighbor who CHOSE to be a stay-at-home mom and CHOSE to drive a luxury vehicle your retirement money because you don't need it because you were responsible?"
Somehow I don't think going to fly with a very large voting bloc.
And BTW--I'm not for National Health Care. Again, I've taken the financial steps and done without things I "wanted" to be responsible and have savings and a plan to cover health insurance costs if need be.
BTW--I'm not a conservative and could give a rats ass about your family values. I'm an independent who believes in capitalism (not to say I believe that corporations have the right to abuse employees or steal from shareholders), and I'm straight, but not narrow.
<snip> Since when does insurance require means testing? Only ENTITLEMENT programs require means testing.
News Flash: Social insurance, aka Social Security, IS an entitlement program. As is Medicare, etc. Unlike private insurance, social insurance programs do not carry contractual rights. Ergo, it as an entitlement program.
Which was their choice. We all make choices and deal with the consequences of those. If a woman didn't work outside of the home, even more reason to put more money away for retirement.
Why should the rest of us have to carry the burden of their choice?
And when I pay premiums into my whole life insurance, and they tell me that they will cover me for "X" dollars by sending me little statements in the mail every year for 30 years, I have a reasonable expectation that they won't suddenly be allowed to change the terms of the plan I've been paying into for my entire working life just as I retire because suddenly they determine I've got enough money and don't need the fund I've been building for years.
Perhaps if you actually READ the "little" statements you would have determined that your expectations were not reasonable. You would have found verbiage similar to the following:
"We can't provide your actual benefit amount until you apply for benefits. And that amount may differ from the estimates stated below because -
(2) Your benefit figures shown here are only estimates based on current law. The laws governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73% of benefits owed." - Your Social Statement Statement (2002)
"Your estimated payments are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76% of scheduled benefits." Your Social Security Statement (2009, 2010)
(Bold typeface in the originals)
Again, the government can (and does) change the terms of entitlement programs because they are not contracts.
If SS becomes means tested, that's exactly what the government will be doing. Y'think?
Why should I get less than the guy down the street because I saved my money instead of driving luxury vehicles and having every electronic gadget known to man?
Poor people don't drive luxury vehicles and own every electronic gadget known to man.
The government has told me for years how much to expect in retirement. See above.
Why should I then get that taken away because I DID THE RIGHT THING AND SAVED?
I suppose one option would be to impoverish yourself by donating your money to charity or gifting it to your child/ren. Of course, this wouldn't work if you will be receiving a pension or monthly annuity. Damn.
Frankly when it comes to retirement, like you said, people can shack up with relatives or move to other areas with a lower cost of living. Since when is it my responsibility to cover their asses because they CHOSE to not cover their own?
Well, the above two statements demonstrate a substantial amount of ignorance. What world do you live in??
The sole purpose of Social Security is to help certain populations, including the elderly, avoid poverty. In the 1930's over 50% of the 65+ population fell below the poverty law.
The majority of people I know with no savings have a lot more toys than I do. Big flat screens, luxury cars, and lots of vacations.
Yet they will comfortably during retirement while I drain my savings.
Like I said, maybe it's time we forced people to contribute to IRA's or pay higher SS taxes that they will get back down the road.
The tax burden on the middle income population will soon enough cause us to live a lower lifestyle than those making half of what we make or even those already getting a full menu of entitlements. It's obscene.
Leonora wrote:
News Flash: Social insurance, aka Social Security, IS an entitlement program. As is Medicare, etc. Unlike private insurance, social insurance programs do not carry contractual rights. Ergo, it as an entitlement program.
Yes, it is unarguable that "Unlike private insurance, social insurance programs do not carry contractual rights." But not all entitlement programs are the same, and the word is emotionally loaded. There is a fundamental difference between food stamps/welfare, where the only requirement is to be poor (a "pure" entitlement program), and Social Security, where the requirement is to have paid in and where the benefit amount is to some degree proportional to the amount paid in, thus making it more akin to private insurance than to welfare. So although calling S.S. an entitlement program may be technically correct, I think it obscures the issue.
I understand, and share, (in regard to the possible future means-testing of Social Security benefits) the other poster's resentment of people who did earn money but who were life-long spend-thrifts. The spend-thrifts, who are now "poor" in retirement, would receive their S.S. payments, but the poster who (for the sake of example) earned the same and paid the same FICA taxes, would receive nothing, in contradiction to the decades long practices.
Quoting the disclaimers from the S.S. statements is certainly germaine, but I think the other poster is raising a fairness issue, not an issue of the right of Congress to modify the Social Security program.
Leonora wrote:
News Flash: Social insurance, aka Social Security, IS an entitlement program. As is Medicare, etc. Unlike private insurance, social insurance programs do not carry contractual rights. Ergo, it as an entitlement program.
Yes, it is unarguable that "Unlike private insurance, social insurance programs do not carry contractual rights." But not all entitlement programs are the same, and the word is emotionally loaded. There is a fundamental difference between food stamps/welfare, where the only requirement is to be poor (a "pure" entitlement program), and Social Security, where the requirement is to have paid in and where the benefit amount is to some degree proportional to the amount paid in, thus making it more akin to private insurance than to welfare. So although calling S.S. an entitlement program may be technically correct, I think it obscures the issue.
I understand, and share, (in regard to the possible future means-testing of Social Security benefits) the other poster's resentment of people who did earn money but who were life-long spend-thrifts. The spend-thrifts, who are now "poor" in retirement, would receive their S.S. payments, but the poster who (for the sake of example) earned the same and paid the same FICA taxes, would receive nothing, in contradiction to the decades long practices.
Quoting the disclaimers from the S.S. statements is certainly germaine, but I think the other poster is raising a fairness issue, not an issue of the right of Congress to modify the Social Security program.
Sorry, I have no patience for willful ignorance nor whiners. The poster demonstrated she is guilty of the former and sounds like the latter.
NONE of the published "means testing" proposals suggest that retirees will lose their social security benefits based on their accumulation of assets. In general, Republicans are in favor of some type of "means testing" and Democrats are not. The type of means testing suggested by the former looks at income, not assets. (Granted, Mitch McConnell is raging about sending pension checks to Millionaires, but since he's not submitting a proposal for consideration, I assume he's trying to suck up to the middle class.)
BTW, the other day I interviewed a 66 year old lady whose husband recently deserted her. She worked her entire life and her income is as follows: $711 SS check, $7 SSI supplement and $150 in food stamps. No assets.
It is incredibly ignorant to assume that the poor working class earns enough money to provide for their living expenses, i.e. food, water, utilities, rent, clothing, medical expenses, etc. AND save for retirement. It also disgustingly condescending to assume that if all people "worked hard" and did not spend their money on luxuries, they too, could enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in retirement.
IMO, the following comments are both ignorant and obscene:
"So if you are 55 years old and make $100K and max out your 401K at $22K for the year and your IRA at $6K for the year, you'll only pay SS taxes on $72K, not $100K. It will benefit lower income people who will build a true retirement nest egg and pay lower taxes at the same time."
"I'd gladly give up 50% of what they've been telling me all along that I'd be getting, as long as everyone else also had to give up their 50%."
"Who is to say what I need? I have worked hard to have a certain lifestyle. Now I don't care if someone else lives in a box, if that meets their needs than so be it. But my lifestyle is such that I have certain needs, and who is to say what they might or might not be."
God help this country.
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.
Entitlement or not?
