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 11-19-2016, 01:15 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 2,747,460 times
Reputation: 1548

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
Trump's proposed 13.5% across-the-board cut in federal spending would result in a cut to Social Security that would reduce the average monthly benefit by $182, from $1,360 in 2017 to $1,177.

If you are a retiree who voted for him- did you not know what his policies were?
Retirees be like old Brits on 6/24/16

 
Old 11-19-2016, 02:51 PM
 
10,812 posts, read 8,058,272 times
Reputation: 17010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
Who cares? You should. Without Social Security we will have people starving and dying in the streets again. Your parents maybe, or you will have to take your parents and possibly aunts and uncles into your own home and support them. This doesn't just affect older people.
^^^^ This.
My paternal grandparents, my father, and DH's mother all had SS only, no pensions, and only modest savings. My mother had a tiny pension so needed SS to live. All except my father lived into their 80s and 90s. DH's mom is still alive at 92.
We would have had to provide support for ALL of them, including overlap years when most or all were still living.
In fact we did supplement some of them, but only about $100-200 a month each. Without SS it would have been thousands of $$ a month.
So although DH & I have yet to file for our own benefits, we in effect have already rec'd more $ than we paid in during our working years.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 04:35 PM
 
1,185 posts, read 662,802 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAcapulco View Post
Social Security wasn't going to be around when I retire anyways.

Who cares.
If your parents are living, you should be aware that over half of the states have "filial responsibility" laws on the books. If your parents need support, guess who the state can come after for money - their children.

It already happened in PA when a son lost a lawsuit and had to fork over over $90k for his mother's care.
More states may be in dire circumstances and start to investigate how these laws can help them.

At the very least, I think the 5-year look back for transfer of property could be extended to even more years (it used to be three) or eliminated altogether as the government deals with the coming tsunami of older people needing care.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,535 posts, read 43,982,964 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The big deduction the middle class lost was the deduction for consumer loans and credit cards. IIRC you also lost the mortgage interest deduction on your second and third homes, though the interest deduction on your primary residence went up, interest on rentals could be written off as a business expense, and amortization of personal and rental property accelerated. Everybody's tax rate went down regardless of income. Having your taxes go up during one of the biggest tax cuts in history was a neat trick, if you actually managed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I lived through it, I have no reason to lie, maybe you should do a little more research, for one thing in the 1986 tax law Reagan only eliminated the mortgage deduction for your third and fourth homes.. There was no threshold for deduction of medical expenses until Reagan set it at 5% in 1982 and then in 1986 increased it to 7.5% In 1986 he not only eliminated the deduction for credit cards, but also for auto loans and student loan interest And while eliminating deductions he raised payroll taxes.

Maybe he is your hero, but he's not mine.
I clearly remember the loss of the medical deduction and, in particular, credit card interest. Reducing tax rates does not help when one is fairly low-income to begin with and then the first dollar is taxed. Prior to Reagan, I could deduct medical and credit card interest - and, most importantly - the first $5,000 of taxable income was NOT taxed. That alone, added $500 to my tax bill. No, for a single-income parent at a fairly low wage starting over after the recession, those changes hurt.

Today 2sleepy and I would qualify for the EIC - not a program available, then - and we'd be paying no tax and getting refundable tax credit in the form of CASH from the govt, to boot. I had to apply for financial aid at my son's Catholic school (huge property taxes but public school for him was a bad fit) - as did many of the single mothers I worked with. Those were terrible years. Before the recession my income was close to $30k/yr., after the recession having gone through half my net worth just to keep afloat, income was almost halved. And, then, on top of it, taxes went up. The 80's were terrible. Worst of my life. I'll never forget those years.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 11-19-2016 at 05:11 PM..
 
Old 11-19-2016, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,230 posts, read 12,491,644 times
Reputation: 19374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
I clearly remember the loss of the medical deduction and, in particular, credit card interest. Reducing tax rates does not help when one is fairly low-income to begin with and then the first dollar is taxed. Prior to Reagan, I could deduct medical and credit card interest - and, most importantly - the first $5,000 of taxable income was NOT taxed. That alone, added $500 to my tax bill. No, for a single-income parent at a fairly low wage starting over after the recession, those changes hurt.

Today 2sleepy and I would qualify for the EIC - not a program available, then - and we'd be paying no tax and getting refundable tax credit in the form of CASH from the govt, to boot. I had to apply for financial aid at my son's Catholic school (huge property taxes but public school for him was a bad fit) - as did many of the single mothers I worked with. Those were terrible years. Before the recession my income was close to $30k/yr., after the recession having gone through half my net worth just to keep afloat, income was almost halved. And, then, on top of it, taxes went up. The 80's were terrible. Worst of my life. I'll never forget those years.
Once again your memory betrays you. The EIC certainly was available, even before 1986.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:30 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
^^^^ This.
My paternal grandparents, my father, and DH's mother all had SS only, no pensions, and only modest savings. My mother had a tiny pension so needed SS to live. All except my father lived into their 80s and 90s. DH's mom is still alive at 92.
We would have had to provide support for ALL of them, including overlap years when most or all were still living.
In fact we did supplement some of them, but only about $100-200 a month each. Without SS it would have been thousands of $$ a month.
So although DH & I have yet to file for our own benefits, we in effect have already rec'd more $ than we paid in during our working years.

Owning a paid-off home makes a HUGE difference in retirement - huge difference between free-and-clear and paying rent month after month after month.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,009 posts, read 13,571,153 times
Reputation: 22096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Once again your memory betrays you. The EIC certainly was available, even before 1986.
The maximum EITC in 1979-1984 was $500 the phase out was $6,000-$10,000 I made more than $10,000 during that time. In 1985-1986 it was $550 the phase out was $6500-$11,000 I made more than $11,000 in those years. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10256.pdf Here are weekly salaries by profession for 1986, in order to qualify for the 'full' whopping $500 you would have had to have been earning $541 a month it was a big joke at the time, no one working full time made that little money. An entry level cashier or teachers aide made around $9200-$10,000 a year. So yes, you are correct the EITC was available but it was so income limited that I never knew anyone who actually received it.

Last edited by 2sleepy; 11-19-2016 at 08:46 PM..
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:35 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Once again your memory betrays you. The EIC certainly was available, even before 1986.

EITC was expanded in 1986; so it was more significant after than it was before.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,009 posts, read 13,571,153 times
Reputation: 22096
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
EITC was expanded in 1986; so it was more significant after than it was before.
I guess we will have to disagree on what we consider 'significant'. In 1986 went up from $500 to $550 and the phase out was increased from $6,000-$10,000 to $6500-$11,000 http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10256.pdf
 
Old 11-19-2016, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,891 posts, read 14,224,806 times
Reputation: 16076
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
Just curious, can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that supports that claim?
State legislatures have passed laws driving the cost of "health insurance" higher. These laws are known as mandated health insurance benefit laws, they force insurers and employers to cover specific providers or procedures not usually included in basic healthcare plans.

Quote:
Regulations for the content of private health plans, called mandated benefit laws, are widespread and growing in the United States, at both state and federal levels. Three aspects of these laws are examined: their current scope; some economic reasons for their existence; and the theory and empirical evidence for their effects in health insurance markets. A growing body of literature suggests that society is paying a high price for enhanced coverage via mandated benefits. These laws increase insurance premiums, cause declines in wages and other fringe benefits, and lead some employers and their workers to forgo health benefits altogether. The cost of mandated benefit laws falls disproportionately on workers in small firms.
[emphasis mine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10656028

Which costs more: general liability auto insurance or full-coverage auto insurance?

If auto insurance would be regulated like health insurance, then you wouldn't have a choice of general liability. Instead, you'd be forced to buy full-coverage, whether you wanted it or not. Worse than that, you'd be forced to buy auto insurance with numerous riders, like flood insurance, rental coverage, towing assistance, depreciation waivers, accident forgiveness, etc etc etc, to the point that you were priced out.

On the other hand, if health insurance were deregulated and functioned like auto insurance, you could buy only what you needed, and it would be more affordable.

For example, mental health care drives up the price of premiums an extra 10%-13%. Adding benefits for substance abuse drives up the price another 6%.

Adding dental and vision drives up the price of health insurance premiums, too. Every time a State (or the federal government) mandates that something be included, like doctor's office visits or pharmaceuticals, the price of insurance premiums increases.

You can see this link for autism insurance reform:

https://www.autismspeaks.org/state-initiatives

44 States now mandate that autism be covered. That costs money and the costs are passed onto consumers.


Quote:
"Every 10 percent increase in health insurance costs reduces the chances of being employed by 1.6 percent. It also reduces hours worked by 1 percent."


"Two-thirds of a premium increase is paid for with wages and the remaining third from a reduction in benefits."

In an indication of why the cause of health care reform is attracting a broader constituency, two new NBER studies offer evidence that soaring health insurance premiums do more than swell the ranks of the uninsured. They boost unemployment, push more workers into part-time jobs, and force employees to sacrifice wages and other benefits just to retain some measure of coverage.


In The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums (NBER Working Paper No. 11160), NBER associates Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra note that premiums for employer-provided health insurance have risen 59 percent since 2000, far outstripping wage gains. For example, between 2003 and 2004 alone, premiums went up by 11.2 percent while wages increased only 2.3 percent.
Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums

It's in your best interest to deregulate the insurance companies by eliminating mandated benefits.
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