TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › All eyes on Wisconsin: Public unions versus the Tea Party
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All eyes on Wisconsin: Public unions versus the Tea Party - Page 8

post #211 of 221
3/20/11 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
So you think it's fair that someone making say $50K a year pays 6.2% of their income or $3300 to SS while someone making $500,000 a year pays $6600 or 1.3% of their income to SS? And someone earning $5M a year pays 0.13% or the capped $6600? What is fair about that? It's a regressive tax. The more you earn, the less you pay as a % of your income. That stinks.
I see what you're saying, but I'm just curious, if you, my old highschool buddy Christian, and I went out for pizza, and I had six slices because I'm a hungry piggy, you had three slices, and Christian didn't get any at all because I ate really fast while he was in the bathroom and nothing was left (*burp*)... how would you divide up the pizza bill?

Have Christian pay for 3/4 of the pizza because he's a doctor, and you and I would split the cost of 1/4 of it since we make the same? Not sure how we could phrase that to Christian. "Hey Christian, you earn too much money, give me some"...

Paying in to social security is supposed to be for your retirement, not a program to redistribute wealth.
Reply
post #212 of 221
3/20/11 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I see what you're saying, but I'm just curious, if you, my old highschool buddy Christian, and I went out for pizza, and I had six slices because I'm a hungry piggy, you had three slices, and Christian didn't get any at all... how would you divide up the pizza bill?

Have Christian pay for 3/4 of the pizza because he's a doctor, and you and I would split the cost of 1/4 of it since we make the same? Not sure how we could phrase that to Christian. "Hey Christian, you earn too much money, give me some"...

Paying in to social security is supposed to be for your retirement, not a program to redistribute wealth.
If you think I'm wrong, then just how do you explain that Medicare @ 1.45% applies to every dollar earned, not just the first $106K? And if it's OK for Medicare, then why isn't it OK for SS?

And how you view it still has to do with what it is. I say it's a tax. You say it's a contribution. I believe different rules apply based on what it is.
Reply
post #213 of 221
3/21/11 at 5:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
If you think I'm wrong, then just how do you explain that Medicare @ 1.45% applies to every dollar earned, not just the first $106K? And if it's OK for Medicare, then why isn't it OK for SS?

And how you view it still has to do with what it is. I say it's a tax. You say it's a contribution. I believe different rules apply based on what it is.
And I say everyone needs to remember that when your Medicare days begin, you pay a monthly premium of almost 100 dollars a month! (for Medicare Part B) (whether you go to a doctor that month or not) So you're still paying into it well past middle age and immediately into your usage of it, as an ongoing expense. Some system! And guess what, if you're a pretty healthy older person, that monthly premium doesn't really work to your advantage. Part D premiums are an expense on top of that (In other words, yet another, additional expense!) How wonderful, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
The top 3 fiscal expenditures for the Federal government are military, social security and medicare/medicaid.
Y'know, I've seen the bolded blue text written that way before in cyberspace but I wish netizens would say SS-slash(/)-Medicare because it's the same administration who handles both - the SSA. And it would help educate average Americans who erroneously think Medicare is for poor people (I saw that posted on another message board)
Reply
post #214 of 221
3/21/11 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post
And I say everyone needs to remember that when your Medicare days begin, you pay a monthly premium of almost 100 dollars a month! (for Medicare Part B) (whether you go to a doctor that month or not) So you're still paying into it well past middle age and immediately into your usage of it, as an ongoing expense. Some system! And guess what, if you're a pretty healthy older person, that monthly premium doesn't really work to your advantage. Part D premiums are an expense on top of that (In other words, yet another, additional expense!) How wonderful, huh?



Y'know, I've seen the bolded blue text written that way before in cyberspace but I wish netizens would say SS-slash(/)-Medicare because it's the same administration who handles both - the SSA. And it would help educate average Americans who erroneously think Medicare is for poor people (I saw that posted on another message board)
I'm about to turn 65, and just got word that my Medicare premium will be $118 per mo.!

You're right. Medicare is for everyone over 65. You can't opt out even if you want to. Medicaid, or in my state, MediCal is for the poor.
Reply
post #215 of 221
3/22/11 at 10:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I'm about to turn 65, and just got word that my Medicare premium will be $118 per mo.!
Anything over 3 digits is kind of ridiculous IMO and I bet many aren't laughing.
Reply
post #216 of 221
3/22/11 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post
Anything over 3 digits is kind of ridiculous IMO and I bet many aren't laughing.
I'm not laughing. And that on top of not getting a cost of living raise because "there is no inflation" BS. Tell my gas pump there is no inflation. Inflation is jumping into my grocery basket every time I go shopping.
Reply
post #217 of 221
3/23/11 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I can only define it inasmuch as where I live, so I would say that someone who has income of $100,000 or more today after retirement in Fresno, CA does not "need" the pittance of Social Security. So, for the sake of argument, I would tie it to the CPI in Fresno as of today as the point at which it would diminish, so that someone with an income of $200K a year today in Fresno would not "need" any help, and it should be eliminated for anyone with an income of $200K or more - again adjusted for inflation based on the current CPI a/o Fresno. Obviously those living in NYC and Boston would be adjusted accordingly. So for the sake of argument, the reduction would start at $100K post-retirement income a year and be eliminated at $200K post-retirement income a year.

If we could get rid of the blood-sucking unions, I don't believe the majority of people would repeal labor laws. That is just wild speculation and would be counter productive to the majority of voters.
My point exactly. You can't set any type of definite number on "need", when everyone has a different definition as to what exactly "need" is.

It is speculation, yes, but not wild at all. At least, no more wild that some of the statements made here already, such as something about Chicago union strikers murdering someone in Wisconsin?

Raising the retirement age won't agree with the majority of voters either, but is that going to stop them? It will, however, save their corporate bosses a great deal of money by lessing the duration of retirement they have to pay, and increasing the likelihood that much of it won't have to be paid at all.
Reply
post #218 of 221
3/23/11 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Paying in to social security is supposed to be for your retirement, not a program to redistribute wealth.
Again, no, it isn't. You save for your retirement. All social security is for is to keep you from going hungry or naked...barely.
Reply
post #219 of 221
3/23/11 at 9:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post

Y'know, I've seen the bolded blue text written that way before in cyberspace but I wish netizens would say SS-slash(/)-Medicare because it's the same administration who handles both - the SSA. And it would help educate average Americans who erroneously think Medicare is for poor people (I saw that posted on another message board)
I grouped them that way not because of how they are run or who runs them, but by solution. Medicare/Medicaid share a solution, stop the waste. SS just needs to go.
Reply
post #220 of 221
3/23/11 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post
Anything over 3 digits is kind of ridiculous IMO and I bet many aren't laughing.
And a good amount of that is wasted. It should be fixed, huh?
Reply
post #221 of 221
3/24/11 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Again, no, it isn't. You save for your retirement. All social security is for is to keep you from going hungry or naked...barely.
And, of course, that's really the problem. SS is slowly becoming an ID system; I personally have no problem with that, but I do know people who come unglued when they're asked for the SS #. And SS was sold to the public as an insurance/retirement program, when it is really a welfare program redistributing income from the young to the old. That's not a problem, either, as long as we understand that and make the system viable, which could happen with just a few tweaks (which will probably get made about 2 years later than it should have, knowing our legislators).
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › All eyes on Wisconsin: Public unions versus the Tea Party