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.
He proposes to cap 401(k)'s and IRA's at 3 million. Beyond that you could not contribute any more to your accounts as he feels that is sufficient for anyone. I love how he determines what is sufficient...
Would someone please give Obama and wifey a book about the French Revolution so they can see the outcome of the "Let them eat cake" attitude!!!
This won't affect wealthy retirees but the people who rely on SS soley are going to hurt big time...
No wonder so many retirees are moving off shore to Banana Republics...
...But all you're saying there is that these changes Marc is talking about have to be progressive in nature, so the only people who wouldn't get benefits are those who are in that very small group who are most affluent...
It really should be all or nothing [with regard to chained CPI]...
Well - I plowed through the WSJ articles about this this morning.
When it comes to people paying more for Medicare - the current surcharges for "the wealthy" only apply to 5% of all Medicare recipients now. Obama plans to increase surcharges so they cover 25% of all Medicare recipients (no income limits or surcharge amounts specified yet). 25% isn't exactly a "tiny" %. I think that's a good start.
When it comes to chained CPI - Obama contemplates that it will only apply to certain recipients - and that the current CPI will stay in place for those who are "needy" (no definition of "needy" specified yet). I agree with you that it should be an "all or nothing" thing (especially since someone who isn't "needy" today may become "needy" tomorrow - and vice versa). Robyn
He proposes to cap (tax deferred contributions) at 3 million.
Beyond that you could not contribute any more to your (tax deferred) accounts...
Your pique sounds like you might even have that much in tax deferred accounts.
Don't expect too much sympathy.
But if you do...
I wonder how you'll react when they gig you to move up paying the deferred taxation.
Still... don't expect too much sympathy for your plight.
Well - I plowed through the WSJ articles about this this morning.
When it comes to people paying more for Medicare - the current surcharges for "the wealthy" only apply to 5% of all Medicare recipients now. Obama plans to increase surcharges so they cover 25% of all Medicare recipients (no income limits or surcharge amounts specified yet). 25% isn't exactly a "tiny" %. I think that's a good start.
When it comes to chained CPI - Obama contemplates that it will only apply to certain recipients - and that the current CPI will stay in place for those who are "needy" (no definition of "needy" specified yet). I agree with you that it should be an "all or nothing" thing (especially since someone who isn't "needy" today may become "needy" tomorrow - and vice versa). Robyn
I just hope they don't use income tax filing to determine who is needy. I know lots of people who make a pretty comfortable income but don't have to pay income tax on their public pensions. Here in WA state there are police and firefighters under an old pension plan which has since been done away with, that states no income tax will be paid on their pension. We don't have a state income tax here so they are talking about federal.
I totally agree that the "needy" - (would love to know who is going to determine that and if it will be done correctly)- should not be penalized. As far as present needy and future needy - there has got to be a formula to not have to jump through hoops to qualify.
As far as present needy and future needy - there has got to be a formula to not have to jump through hoops to qualify.
There are LOT's of formula's to choose from.
Here's a LINK to a recent article you might like that discusses the issues...
of distinguishing where self sufficiency lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excerpt
Much of the "middle class" ... is in reality poor, but neither seems inclined to use the word.
The federal government, using a formula developed nearly 50 years ago, defines poverty as pretax
annual income of $23,050 for a family of four, and $11,170 for a single person.
...sends his students out each year to calculate a subsistence family budget based on the costs of food,
rent, household energy and other basics, and they always come back with numbers much higher
than the government's poverty threshold: $30,000 to $50,000 a year for a family of four.
A single adult ... needs $30,373 annually to meet basic needs, nearly three times the government's poverty threshold. A family of one adult and two children... needs $61,998 annually for self-sufficiency.
I just hope they don't use income tax filing to determine who is needy. I know lots of people who make a pretty comfortable income but don't have to pay income tax on their public pensions. Here in WA state there are police and firefighters under an old pension plan which has since been done away with, that states no income tax will be paid on their pension. We don't have a state income tax here so they are talking about federal.
I totally agree that the "needy" - (would love to know who is going to determine that and if it will be done correctly)- should not be penalized. As far as present needy and future needy - there has got to be a formula to not have to jump through hoops to qualify.
In terms of the chained CPI protections, needy can be defined as poor, as in "dirt poor". If I understand the proposal correctly, the chained CPI will not be applied to means tested programs nor the federal poverty guidelines.
The President's budget proposal also provides small "benefit enhancements" for those who reach ages 76 and 95.
Your pique sounds like you might even have that much in tax deferred accounts.
Don't expect too much sympathy.
But if you do...
I wonder how you'll react when they gig you to move up paying the deferred taxation.
Still... don't expect too much sympathy for your plight.
I was merely posting that one of our posters had previously called this correctly.
I do not fit into either of these catagories so I am not sure why you are attacking me?
If you can't simply post a link to an article without being attacked, then this is certainly not a place that I want to associate myself with...
My "pique" as you put it has nothing to do with the caps...but with the fact that the President, ANY President should be deciding whats best for all of us...I guess if Bloomberg can create a Monarchy out of NYC...then why not try it with the country...
WOW!!
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.
