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)
 
Old 11-11-2016, 05:08 PM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,236 posts, read 8,402,791 times
Reputation: 7191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bygeorge View Post
If the US does not have a significant job recovery with good wages and with workers inputting money into the SS program, then you had better hope a lot of people die before SS age. At a minimum, the age for SS will have to be increased. I can also see a means test of some sort down the road.

<snip>

SS benefits are already "means tested".

Have you looked at the SS Worksheet in an IRS 1040 Instructions booklet ? Where up to 85% of your benefits can be taxed at your marginal bracket rate ?? This year I am on track to have 45% taxed, resulting in "giving back" 6.8% of my benefits.

 
Old 11-11-2016, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
Donald the Deplorable is the ultimate snake-oil salesman. But is he foolish enough to reduce Social Security, the third-rail of politics, for current and soon-to-be recipients? In his opening campaign statement, he swore that no current benefits in SS, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid would be reduced. At the Republican Convention this year, their platform included the same promise.
So what could change about that? Have Trump and the Republicans ever been known to lie or mislead about anything? I agree that Ryan is the more dangerous and scheming weasel of the two. Why didn't he want to be the nominee of the party? He could have had it easily. It's because he knows he will have more power and destructive ability in his current position. And he can maintain a lower profile while he does it and escape the flak that would be launched at a president.
yep, Ryan is one scary dude and no matter what they put in the platform, he's already claiming he's going to privatize medicare: Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
 
Old 11-11-2016, 07:32 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,668 posts, read 8,577,038 times
Reputation: 19868
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
yep, Ryan is one scary dude and no matter what they put in the platform, he's already claiming he's going to privatize medicare: Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
Privatization is a good idea. Should have been done years ago.
I'm a retiree and I support the idea.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Privatization is a good idea. Should have been done years ago.
I'm a retiree and I support the idea.
The cost of a medicare advantage plan to the Federal Govt is $900-$1100 a month per person. Maybe you can afford that, but most of us can't. Ryan promises 'policy support' but when does that kick in? My guess is that only the poorest of the poor would get a dime, and if they did it would probably be in the form of some idiotic tax deduction which would do nothing for millions of retirees who have little or no taxable income.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 08:00 PM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,196,725 times
Reputation: 8108
Most people don't know that Reagan signed off on a tax increase to save Social Security, though it was combined with an increased retirement age.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,581 posts, read 17,567,761 times
Reputation: 27672
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
yep, Ryan is one scary dude and no matter what they put in the platform, he's already claiming he's going to privatize medicare: Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
Trump and Ryan have massively butted heads. I'm not sure Ryan, McConnell, and Trump can get along at all.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
1,660 posts, read 1,525,009 times
Reputation: 3640
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombleywomberly View Post
When did this happen?
For those enlisting after Jan 1, 2018, retirement benefits have been changed to a reduced defined benefit combined with a defined contribution plan with up to 5% matching but not until after a certain number of years of service (e.g., year 5 as a carrot to re-enlist). The reduction in the defined benefit is not too drastic - from 2 1/2 x number of years to service to 2. I don't know which party pushed for the change. The current system was considered to be unfair since those who left the military with less than 20 years of service received no retirement benefits - mostly enlisted.
 
Old 11-11-2016, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Trump and Ryan have massively butted heads. I'm not sure Ryan, McConnell, and Trump can get along at all.
I know and I hope that Trump is engaged enough in the process to stop Ryan, but my concern is that sausage making is not his forte and he will likely turn it over to Pence who is every bit as dangerous as Ryan...I'm really hoping I'm wrong about that though
 
Old 11-11-2016, 09:56 PM
 
1,183 posts, read 761,708 times
Reputation: 3403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Privatization is a good idea. Should have been done years ago.
I'm a retiree and I support the idea.
since being a retiree gives added weight to an opinion per your statement then i'll say this:

i'm a retiree and i don't support this.
and i'll probably never take part b until i'm forced to do so.

Last edited by old fed; 11-11-2016 at 09:58 PM.. Reason: words
 
Old 11-11-2016, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Most people don't know that Reagan signed off on a tax increase to save Social Security, though it was combined with an increased retirement age.
I know about it, and I know why he did it, he claimed it was to 'save SS' but it actually created a surplus in the trust fund of 2.7 trillion which Reagan promptly decided should be transferred to the general fund (and no, I'm not making this up)

"The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. - See more at: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist : FedSmith.com
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.


Closed Thread

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
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