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.
What's your source for that? Add up all the FICA premiums plus compounded interest seniors have paid into FICA for decades before receiving any benefits whatsoever (the I in FICA is for Insurance - look it up ). And seniors pay an additional premium each month for Medicare Part B even after retirement. It's deducted from their SS check.
FICA premiums are indeed taken out throughout your working years, and do hypothetically return to you if you become long-term disabled or you reach age 65, I understood the bleeding liberal argument long ago that it is "tax" and that the poor "somehow" pay a higher percentage of their income IF they work. It's NOT GUARANTEED to pay like a life insurance/health insurance policy would. You MUST meet certain conditions to get the benefit, namely LIVE to the ripe old age of 62-67 or become federally disabled. If you die before your senior years, too bad, so sad. . In that situation, You were TAXED and ripped off during your working years to give that $$ to the gov't instead of being provided an "insurance benefit". It smells like a rotten tax to me, not a benefit since not guaranteed.
I'm saying at least 10 years of contributions are required before one is even eligible for Medicare/SS, PLUS there's a minimum eligibility age. There are NO contributions required for Medicaid, CHIP, etc. eligibility, and one can receive them from cradle to grave. Guess which costs more while receiving less in direct funding.
I'd be good with that if taxation were eliminated.
Actually the 10 year part is incorrect. It's called ssi. I don't think we actually have much of a quibble however.
What needs to be looked at are the unfunded entitlements. Seniors have paid into SS and Medicare for decades, and there are STILL premiums that have to be paid for Medicare after age 65, so that's not really the problem.
Welfare recipients: Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, food stamps, free school breakfast, lunch, and sometimes even dinner, section 8 housing, welfare, etc., etc. have NO contribution requirements for eligibility.
The UNFUNDED entitlement programs are the problem.
Seniors only pay about a third of the Medicare benefits they are receiving and one in five seniors receives Medicaid in addition to Medicare and Social Security. Seniors are relying on current tax payers to pay for them. Medicare Part D was unfunded as well.
I would be curious to see a side by side comparison of how much seniors cost considering illegal immigrants pay billions in taxes. I'm not promoting illegal immigrants but we should acknowledge that the benefits paid to seniors is high and I question how much things like food stamps and reduced lunches really are by comparison.
FICA premiums are indeed taken out throughout your working years, and do hypothetically return to you if you become long-term disabled or you reach age 65, I understood the bleeding liberal argument long ago that it is "tax" and that the poor "somehow" pay a higher percentage of their income IF they work.
That makes NO sense. The Medicare part of FICA is the same rate for everyone who works, and there's no cap.
A $20,000 earner will theoretically pay $290/yr in Medicate tax, but will in all liklihood het all of that back in refundable tax credits as 27% of all tax units pay NEITHER federal income tax NOR FICA due to refundable tax credits specifically tarrgeted to the lower-income.
A $2 million earner will pay $29,000/yr in Medicate tax, PLUS an additional $16,200 (the extra 0.9%) on the income above $200,000. So... $45,200/yr.
$290/yr (and most likely refunded) vs. $45,200/yr.
Both age 65+ retirees will get the same Medicare insurance benefits. Guess which is WAY underpaying and will use multiple times in resources what they've contributed for the decades of their working career, and guess which is WAY OVERpaying and will LOSE money on Medicare, just like they LOSE money on SS.
No, it's not incorrect. Both SS and Medicare have the minimum 10 years of contributions requirement.
Welfare programs were added on to SS for which no contribution is required, But all that has done is drain resources away from those who've contributed just like all the other means-tested welfare programs do.
Because ALL studies show that a national health care system is FAR more efficient than the bloated private system which doesnt focus on prevention but on cronyism and profits. A normal hospital could have thousands of billing clerks in the US, their job is simply to figure out what to charge and how to bill the countless different private health insurance corporations. Other countries dont waste money like the US does. They provide health care to all people, and with this security, people can also start their dream business without having the fear of losing health insurance.
Other countries don't waste money on treating the elderly, continued care of chronic diseases, or treatment of many premature babies.
They also have less care availible.
And they have less innovation.
And they have lower rates of treatment success for many non-lifestyle dependant disease.
So yea, we have medical billing but we throw more money into a few chronic care long term patient then the entire billing departments cost.
All of those companies benefited from Government involvement. The internet would have never happened if not for the US Gov't.
ROFLMAO. That is one of the most absurd things I've heard all month.
Did the government help accelerate the development? A little, but it would have happened and the time frame wouldn't have been significantly different.
Considering our social programs are going bankrupt and our infrastructure is falling apart, it seems clear that "trickle down" is a failed policy.
It's because too much is going to too many who've contributed little to nothing. The money is trickling down, alright, but it's being spent to provide for the needs many are not bothering to prepare themselves to meet.
As I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Medicare part of FICA is the same rate for everyone who works, and there's no cap.
A $20,000 earner will theoretically pay $290/yr in Medicate tax, but will in all liklihood het all of that back in refundable tax credits as 27% of all tax units pay NEITHER federal income tax NOR FICA due to refundable tax credits specifically tarrgeted to the lower-income.
A $2 million earner will pay $29,000/yr in Medicate tax, PLUS an additional $16,200 (the extra 0.9%) on the income above $200,000. So... $45,200/yr.
$290/yr (and most likely refunded) vs. $45,200/yr.
Both age 65+ retirees will get the same Medicare insurance benefits. Guess which is WAY underpaying and will use multiple times in resources what they've contributed for the decades of their working career, and guess which is WAY OVERpaying and will LOSE money on Medicare, just like they LOSE money on SS.
Now add the means-tested welfare social programs spending on top of that. About $1 trillion worth each year.
Trickle down works, it's just going to meet needs that many won't provide for themselves and their children.
Really interesting perspective from the former Chairmen of the Federal Reserve. He says our problems isn't necessarily short term bubbles and that we aren't coming to a recession soon, but that there are long term fundamentals that are bad. Our spending for our social programs are about to balloon in the next few decades and we need a sound plan to do it. He said Trump's policies are bad. No comment on who he would vote for.
It amazes me, in this dangerous age, the democrats are the ones proposing two more fiscally responsible plans. Sander's paying for his plans with huge new tax increases, and Clinton taking a more modest approach with slight tax increases on the highest brackets. Trump is promising massive job growth and rebuilding infrastructure. It is good everyone agrees that the bridges and roads can no longer be ignored. However, it needs to be clear how exactly we pay for it. Tax cuts are not the answer. It just isn't realistic. Especially after promising special import taxes on things from China. That is only going to make products more expensive for you.
All I am saying is that the last time this country had a Federal Government that was operating on a surplus the Clinton's were in the White House.
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.
). And seniors pay an additional premium each month for Medicare Part B even after retirement. It's deducted from their SS check.
. In that situation, You were TAXED and ripped off during your working years to give that $$ to the gov't instead of being provided an "insurance benefit". It smells like a rotten tax to me, not a benefit since not guaranteed.
