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 11-17-2016, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,602 posts, read 1,892,707 times
Reputation: 2348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
2sleepy, you missed a big part of my post if you start your post with my $25 dollar contribution to retirement when one is starting out in life early. The point being is just to start with something and stop making excuses. And you give me the outside example of the woman at taco bell with severe facial deformities/has trouble walking. Disabled people can take assistance if they want and will never starve/be without shelter and if they choose not to, that's their choice

I'm talking about the vast majority of people who are able bodied/capable people, ie, the vast majority of the population.

In any case, it's obvious you have a different outlook/drive level/have frankly more excuses for the vast majority of people being incapable than I do. The vast majority of people I've known/met/worked with I've found lack drive/goals far more than abilities. You appear to think the standard is most people lack abilities based on your examples. Given this, I think we should just say we simply agree to disagree as you are more from a victim perspective and I have much more faith in the vast majority of people as I feel the vast majority of people are capable of much more achievement than you feel they are capable of.
That's a good lecture to give young people. However, playing Monday morning QB with seniors (most of this forum) doesn't cut it, and comes across as arrogance.

 
Old 11-17-2016, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,602 posts, read 1,892,707 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert View Post
This is the part that makes absolutely no sense.

Why would anyone in an Advantage plan paying $105 a month (todays dollars, it will increase some over the next 7 years but not that excessively) to Medicare with a zero monthly premium even remotely consider switching to an inferior new market based plan? To a plan that'd likely cost them say $1000-$1200 a month (at least, likely more, maybe much more given there is voucher money sloshing around) at age 70. To a plan that also has huge deductibles ($6000 a year or more). The voucher wouldn't come close to making up the differences in costs.

And this part " Medicare beneficiaries would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional FFS Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange " is pure and total BS. In short, an outright lie.

Competition between these two different types of plans is a mathematical impossibility. Unless, of course, the old Advantage plan premiums are purposely (and drastically) increased in the interim to the point that it makes that competition possible. That dishonest sleight of hand was the conclusion in my first read.

Note - this is an attempt to destroy Medicare, nothing else. The market plan portion is a total scam only devised to achieve that end.
I wonder if Paul Ryan has any idea what the average senior is living on? No way this would work. A national crisis in senior healthcare in the making.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,925,427 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
That's a good lecture to give young people. However, playing Monday morning QB with seniors (most of this forum) doesn't cut it, and comes across as arrogance.
I've seen a poll once on this forum and many people who read/participate here aren't retired, let alone seniors. And my viewpoint isn't a "lecture", it's my opinion on the matter. Though on your lecturing me that my viewpoint "comes across as arrogant". Pot, meet kettle.

And if the view from someone, me, who feels the gov is inept/self serving and doesn't trust them to manage my SS based on the reality of how its been "managed" so far and much prefers to have an option to manage the funds myself "comes across as arrogant", I think it would help if you didn't personalize it so much and call other peoples view "arrogant" just because you don't agree with it.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Cochise County, AZ
1,318 posts, read 835,236 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
You completely took me my post out of context/sounds like you didn't even read it. To summarize....gov creating a safety net, good. Gov creating/managing my retirement via SS, bad.
In essence, didn't you infer that each individual should manage their own SS retirement account instead of paying into the joint SS? This is why I responded.

I'm telling you that, if this becomes the case, such monies would not be sacrosanct, just like IRA's aren't sacrosanct.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,925,427 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deelighted View Post
In essence, didn't you infer that each individual should manage their own SS retirement account instead of paying into the joint SS? This is why I responded.

I'm telling you that, if this becomes the case, such monies would not be sacrosanct, just like IRA's aren't sacrosanct.
Yes, that would be my preference, to manage my own retirement money, no SS for me at all. My #1 preference would not want to be any part of it but I'd compromise and if I worked(I retired very early in life), I'd prefer that % of money taken out of a paycheck for SS retirement would go into my own personal/private account for me to manage. Create a few accounts for people to choose from where to invest it.

Perhaps it could be a 2 tier system...for those wanting to remain in the current game, fine. But allow those who want out should have that choice.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,078 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22136
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Yes, that would be my preference, to manage my own retirement money, no SS for me at all. My #1 preference would not want to be any part of it but I'd compromise and if I worked(I retired very early in life), I'd prefer that % of money taken out of a paycheck could go into my own personal account for me to manage. Create a few accounts for people to choose from where to invest it.
Perhaps it could be a 2 tier system...for those wanting to remain in the current game, fine. But allow those who want out should have that choice.
Absolute nonsense, if you let people opt out the system would collapse. Replacing SS with some kind of 401k plan is a horrible idea, the only winner in that one is Wall Street because they make money off the fees and the spread. What happens to the poor schlock who has to retire in the middle of a recession and finds that his 'plan' is now worth half of what it was a few years prior.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,078 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22136
"On Election Night, an ecstatic Paul Ryan announced that Donald Trump had “just won a mandate.” A few days later, he casually and somewhat cryptically stated that the mandate Trump won included the passage of Paul Ryan’s plan to transform Medicare into capped premium support."

"Tom Price, chairman of the House Budget Committee, says that Republicans will pass Medicare privatization in a budget reconciliation bill this year. A budget reconciliation bill can be passed with a majority in the Senate, and cannot be filibustered, but it can only make changes to taxes and spending. The GOP is currently planning to use its first reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare on a time-delayed basis, to avoid having to write an alternative plan. The second bill could privatize Medicare, among other changes."

Republicans Might Be Serious About Going After Medicare
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,925,427 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Absolute nonsense, if you let people opt out the system would collapse. Replacing SS with some kind of 401k plan is a horrible idea, the only winner in that one is Wall Street because they make money off the fees and the spread. What happens to the poor schlock who has to retire in the middle of a recession and finds that his 'plan' is now worth half of what it was a few years prior.
Well, ok, it's "nonsense" to you. And "horrible" to you. We get it. On the other side, deferred plans, private savings/investments allowed us to retire in our early 40's comfortably so realize one's "horrible" is another persons success. And we weren't "rich" by any means in our working years, worked for someone else, etc. Not to brag but simply to highlight what people can do if they start saving/investing early enough in life, want something bad enough in life despite, yes, losing jobs along the way, working several jobs at time to make ends meet, getting layed off/fired as what happened to my wife a few times, having debt as a result, student loans, etc., one can still manage their money successfully without the gov helping them so the victim mentality/people will fall apart without gov managing SS for them doesn't ring true to these ears.

I think we can say you are very dependent on the gov and I'm an independent type person who wants to manage his money in his own way. I think that frames why we won't agree on this subject.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,078 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22136
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Well, ok, it's "nonsense" to you. And "horrible" to you. We get it. On the other side, deferred plans, private savings/investments allowed us to retire in our early 40's comfortably so realize one's "horrible" is another persons success. And we weren't rich by any means, worked for someone else, etc. Not to brag but simply to highlight what people can do if they start saving/investing early enough in life, want something bad enough in life despite, yes, losing jobs along the way, getting layed off/fired as what happened to my wife a few times, having debt as a result, student loans, etc., one can still manage their money successfully without the gov helping them so the victim mentality/people will fall apart without gov managing SS for them doesn't ring true to these ears.

I think we can say you are very dependent on the gov and I'm an independent type person who wants to manage his money in his own way. I think that frames why we won't agree on this subject.
That was not a very good argument for privatizing SS, but perhaps that wasn't the point of your post, maybe you just took this opportunity to once again remind us of your amazing success and then with no basis for doing so, label me as being dependent on the government.
 
Old 11-17-2016, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,925,427 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That was not a very good argument for privatizing SS, but perhaps that wasn't the point of your post, maybe you just took this opportunity to once again remind us of your amazing success and then with no basis for doing so, label me as being dependent on the government.
Yes, one's success with retirement, that I feel the vast majority of people beyond myself are more than capable of managing their money successfully with a little effort and with a goal oriented attitude, is indeed a valid and sound argument to not believe gov needs to nurse someone in retirement. I and many others on this forum are proof of that. And yes, I feel if someone believes in strongly that SS is needed for their retirement success, they feel they aren't capable of handling the money themselves and feels gov will do a better job, they are indeed dependent on the gov, right? That's not an insult, that's reality. If you don't think that's being dependent on something, well, ok then.

2sleepy, we agree to disagree and don't need to get emotional/punchy about it. I'm approaching this from a very objective/methodical place and based on some of your posts/others, I didn't realize it would be getting into a personal/emotional level so let's just end this with a we agree to disagree, ok?
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