On Social Security (calculate, costs, 300k, paying)
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.
Why? Because daddy never purchased life insurance?
Since health insurance is now required or someone has to pay a fine:
Eliminate spouse and children survivor benefits from Social Security and pass a similar law as the health care law that anyone that has dependents (spouse and children) is required by law (just like Obamacare) to purchase life insurance for those dependents.
When life insurance becomes a bad bet, insurance companies cancel it. My life insurance policy only runs to age 85. If my wife lives beyond that, she receives nothing.
Using the mean when looking at the top-5% is really stupid. It distorts the reality that 4% of that group make less than the mean since the top 0.1% have such enormous income. 95th percentile household income is less than $200K and that demographic is very much skewed towards the top half-dozen high cost of living regions of the country. $200K is probably 1%er income in Mississippi. It will barely buy a starter home in the Bay Area where a $700K house is what a blue collar couple would own most places.
No one is looking at the top 5%. The data are for all quintiles.
Moreover, I presented a table that lists the ENTRY POINT for the quintile, not the mean or median of that quintile.
Bay Area, and Beverly Hills, and 5th Avenue NYC are all extremely expensive places to live. At the other end there are affordable places to live. So what?
That's differently twisted. The insurance company is not going to pay $30,000 for $3,000 in damages.
Of course not. But when there is 3K in damages, an insurance company should not say, "we'll only pay $500 because you are a high income person. If you were low income we would pay the full $3K, but you only get $500."
Of course not. But when there is 3K in damages, an insurance company should not say, "we'll only pay $500 because you are a high income person. If you were low income we would pay the full $3K, but you only get $500."
That's not what anyone is saying.
Social Security is end-of-life income insurance.
You're basically filing a claim for benefits, with the claim predicated on the basis that you don't have enough annual income to meet a certain threshold.
Your "damages" would be the difference between your annual retirement income and the threshold, not every penny you paid in premiums.
Nope. The majority of social security recipients are simply senior citizens who retired where it is their primary source of income, not people receiving survivor benefits. Women make up a slightly larger percentage but that is mainly due to difference
Fine, just looked it up and seems I stand corrected.
More one read of the above it becomes apparent how the government punishes single/never married and childless persons while favoring married couples and or those who breed. Singles get screwed on both federal tax level and SS. Also the more you read of the above link it becomes clear why disability is bleeding red ink; it is a cash cow ripe for fraud and so expansive you could drive a Mac truck through it.
You're basically filing a claim for benefits, with the claim predicated on the basis that you don't have enough annual income to meet a certain threshold.
Your "damages" would be the difference between your annual retirement income and the threshold, not every penny you paid in premiums.
But who decides the threshold? Should someone who earned $10 per hour have the same threshold as someone who earned $100 per hour? Even though the $100 paid more in SS tax?
What if a retired person could earn some money by working part time? Should he stay home to get more benefits? Maybe he could work under the table, to earn enough to supplement his benefits, without his work causing the benefits to be reduced.
The more complicated we make the rules, the more we motivate people to find creative ways to violate the rules, and to get in the habit of being scofflaws, to reduce the overall respect for the law of the whole population. If we want people to respect laws and rules, we need to make them clear and fair. And we especially need to motivate people to work. Even retired people should be motivated to work at least part time.
You're basically filing a claim for benefits, with the claim predicated on the basis that you don't have enough annual income to meet a certain threshold.
Your "damages" would be the difference between your annual retirement income and the threshold, not every penny you paid in premiums.
I don't follow your argument.
However the bold portion seems to be a general welfare system, and the framers of SS did not want it to be a general welfare system.
Even though the $100 paid more in Federal Insurance Contribution Act premiums?
There. IFIFY.
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.
