Tag: social security
The first baby boomer turned 65 on January 1. Millions more will follow. ABC News has a video report, dissing the boomers in every way: from calling them "demanding" to implying they are only concerned about themselves and their needs.
The worst is when the reporter says boomers will soon be demanding social security and medicare, "payable by the generations that came after them."
As if baby boomers are asking for a free ride. [More...]
(151 comments, 358 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
There is no social security crisis. Tell Congress not to make changes.
Alan Simpson (R-WY), the Republican co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and other commission members want to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, and push working Americans into private accounts.
Via MoveOn: The Top Five Social Security Myths: [More...]
(32 comments, 738 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
Given that Monday is Labor Day, I thought I'd take a look at my last Social Security/Medicare statment to see how much I've paid in taxes for both over my working life. The statement says I began paying into to Social Secuirty in 1965 (a part time job during high school) and continued up through the present. Given what I've paid in, and that I won't retire until 65 at the earliest, there's no way I'll get all that money back -- I won't live that long.I wonder how many people, like me, won't get their money back, either because they die, or they end up with reduced benfits due to the meme the Government is pushing that in 2014, SS will begin paying out more than it takes in, and by 2041 will not have enough to cover everyone? Why doesn't the excess paid in go back to our heirs if we die early?
I've also paid a bundle into Medicare, which I'm years away from collecting on. If I die, Medicare too keeps the money it collected from me. Do they use it to pay medical care for someone else?
(42 comments, 322 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
A new report on Social Security and Medicare says they will begin paying out more than they take in in taxes sooner than expected. Social Security could be depleted by 2037.
2037 is ages from now. I think we should leave social security alone. I certainly don't want to pay more in social security taxes for reduced benefits, which is one suggestion made by the report:
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 1.6 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement.
(25 comments, 326 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
Sen. Barack Obama says if elected, he will require people who make over $250k a year to pay FICA (social security) taxes on the amount in excess of $250k. (I think he means he will ask Congress to pass such a law.)
Under Obama's plan, like now, you would pay taxes on amounts up to the cap of $102k. Under his plan, you wouldn't pay taxes on amounts between $102k and $250k. But over $250k, and you pay.
The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.
Obama has talked before of establishing such a "doughnut hole" in the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. Friday marked the first time he named a restart level: $250,000 and above.
Here's an ambiguity, at least in the news article. Compare [More...]:
(199 comments, 281 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
First off, he's attacking her character, not just her position on issues. Bad move.
Worse, he's pretending she has not taken a stand on social security. That's false. She has taken her stand and her stand is, as it should be, There Is No Crisis.
It’s astounding to see a Major Dem pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It’s astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won’t go along with that plutocrat claim—especially when he’s been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line—and criticizing Clinton’s troubling “character” because she won’t go there with him.
By the way, tell us again: Which of these two is the “liberal?”
(19 comments, 273 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments