S/S can make it another 104 years with just a pay back. Our government has borrowed a little over 2 trillion dollars form S/S last 50 years. Bush When told of this. Said where does the payback money come from we don't have it. How then will he get the money, 1.5 trillion to start a new idea for the plan. Shows how urgent this problem isn't.
S/S Update
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
show me this 104 years bogus
it is already going bankrupt and with the number of people retiring and the life expectancy increasing along with the value of the dollar going down the toilet with inflation the way it is S/S is a mess that must be fixed
it is already going bankrupt and with the number of people retiring and the life expectancy increasing along with the value of the dollar going down the toilet with inflation the way it is S/S is a mess that must be fixed
It's hard to have any figure as it keeps moving. The fact is social security is cash positive and even with Bush's estimate of a 1.6% growth rate, outflows from the system won't be greater than inflows until the 2030's.
My first question is why are we estimating a 1.6% growth rate if the reason the permanent tax cuts would be breakeven for the U.S treasury is if we have a 5.0%. So do you estimate that the economy will grow at 2% or 5%, or do they just change the estimate based on what they're selling?
My second question would be why is a system that won't provide negative cashflows to the treasury such an immediate problem when we are estimating that we will be running a deficit of 450 billion which the Congressional Budget Office said "omit(s) a significant amount of spending that will occur this year - and conceivably for some time in the future - for US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other efforts in the war on terrorism"?
Why are we worried about a deficit that will happen some time in the future when the "crisis" is in fact in 2005?
My first question is why are we estimating a 1.6% growth rate if the reason the permanent tax cuts would be breakeven for the U.S treasury is if we have a 5.0%. So do you estimate that the economy will grow at 2% or 5%, or do they just change the estimate based on what they're selling?
My second question would be why is a system that won't provide negative cashflows to the treasury such an immediate problem when we are estimating that we will be running a deficit of 450 billion which the Congressional Budget Office said "omit(s) a significant amount of spending that will occur this year - and conceivably for some time in the future - for US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other efforts in the war on terrorism"?
Why are we worried about a deficit that will happen some time in the future when the "crisis" is in fact in 2005?
Forget about SSI . If you are not set with a Ira and a few diversified mutual funds that you make monthly deposits into. You won't be able to live worth a damn anyway so why even worry about SSI ?
I Started or my parents did my first stocks and bonds when I was 3 with bonds and 8 with stocks and have kept my portfolio going and building since I was in college back in early 80's. Have built it up very nice over the last 20 years have 20 more to go. The stocks and bonds my parents started for me at a early age. They are already set for me now but no use changing them. Stocks have done well and have turned over bonds into a few different mutual funds in the s&p 500 a nice one very safe well diversified one goes by sbbpx . Low risk and nice yield will do me just fine in 20 more years have had it for awhile . My other mutual fund has been the same since 23 just added more monthly deposit amounts in it every few years.
I don't even worry or care about SSI. I am taking care of myself much better then the feds have done for me or will ever do for me. It is never to late to start a fund, helps to have at least 10 years to work with. If your in college or just out you can get in a well diversified mutual fund for 100 down in the s&p and put in as little as 50-100 a month till you start making better money then add more to it. In 40 years you should have one hell of a nice nest egg to enjoy.
I never did count on feds to help me live after age 63, nor did my dad count on SSI for me that is why he started me with stocks and bonds at a early age. My parents kept them up till I was 23 and Making money then I over took them and opened up the one mutual fund then the sbbpx one.
About the only people who could live of SSI is a person like djv because I am sure he has a pension plan also from his job.
So I don't worry about it, but do get pissed of at what they took and take and then see what you have coming back. Hell give me the money I paid and pay in and let me use it in my funds they do lot better then and SSI return I will ever get.IMO better off to take care of youself then depend on the feds but that again is just IMO.
I Started or my parents did my first stocks and bonds when I was 3 with bonds and 8 with stocks and have kept my portfolio going and building since I was in college back in early 80's. Have built it up very nice over the last 20 years have 20 more to go. The stocks and bonds my parents started for me at a early age. They are already set for me now but no use changing them. Stocks have done well and have turned over bonds into a few different mutual funds in the s&p 500 a nice one very safe well diversified one goes by sbbpx . Low risk and nice yield will do me just fine in 20 more years have had it for awhile . My other mutual fund has been the same since 23 just added more monthly deposit amounts in it every few years.
I don't even worry or care about SSI. I am taking care of myself much better then the feds have done for me or will ever do for me. It is never to late to start a fund, helps to have at least 10 years to work with. If your in college or just out you can get in a well diversified mutual fund for 100 down in the s&p and put in as little as 50-100 a month till you start making better money then add more to it. In 40 years you should have one hell of a nice nest egg to enjoy.
I never did count on feds to help me live after age 63, nor did my dad count on SSI for me that is why he started me with stocks and bonds at a early age. My parents kept them up till I was 23 and Making money then I over took them and opened up the one mutual fund then the sbbpx one.
About the only people who could live of SSI is a person like djv because I am sure he has a pension plan also from his job.
So I don't worry about it, but do get pissed of at what they took and take and then see what you have coming back. Hell give me the money I paid and pay in and let me use it in my funds they do lot better then and SSI return I will ever get.IMO better off to take care of youself then depend on the feds but that again is just IMO.
It needs fix its just matter of when. Personally I don't think he'll get it through and haven't seen specifics on it so can't say much about it. I do know I'll probably be right in age bracket that get hit with brunt of negatives--but if it helps the younger generation I can live with it--depending how its paid for-- I know I would be tickeled pink if they returned everything I've paid in lump sum @ 0% interest at age 62.
So would I dtb , hell everything we buy has a tax on it then pau income tax and ssi, and like i said ssi won't pay worth a shit if you have no other help or back up. It is like they steal from use almost with all of the taxes. you can be in the toped out range and think 1850 a month is tops you get back and i have paid way more into it then that take back per month after 40 + years of paying into it. Then we have taxes on almost every single thing we buy and that alone should run the country, but they have to take ssi and other income taxes, 22.8% worth. So just with all the tax on food,gas,snuff and cigs, cloths, toys, sports equipment. I don't lmpw of anything we buy we don't pay a tax on, even my own funds will get taxed some what at the end, bs they need to quit wasting our money over seas so much and let us who pay taxes and have for long time keep something. You can't tell me that all the things we buy are not enough money to run the country, if the feds both sides would not waste and give our cash away like camdy, maybe the ones who work 40 years or so could keep our pay checks not give 1/4 away. but i am like you give me back 0% what i paid in would be a hell of a lot more then what you will ever see back hands down.
Fletch you are correct. I am lucky to have the tripleas they call it. S/S, Pension and 401K. But as I said lucky enough to work for a company that looked out for it's people more then most do. Otherwise retirement at 59 would never had happen. As for S/S I never looked at it as a true retirement. I was brought up to remember it was a safty net only. It did because I new it would be there. Give be the protection to gamble more with my other investments. It was never attended to make you rich. I dont see how Bush's plan will change that much. As I understand he will make you still have some of your funds go to the old way. And some then can go for the new way. As true conservatives say. It's better if anything out side of regular S/S should be out side the government. And I agree with that. One S/S with the government running it is enough. Bu it is sad had they not taken and never payed back what they did. How good of shape it could be in and the amounts would be larger also. Our government better start worring about the two deficits soon. Trade and Budget. Or it wont matter what type of system your in.
my plan would be to raise the retirement age 1 year every 5 years until we get it up to 70...
haven't heard anything similar proposed, as it would be political suicide to actually come up with a plan which would be up front about raising the retirement age, something neither of our pandering political parties would do
haven't heard anything similar proposed, as it would be political suicide to actually come up with a plan which would be up front about raising the retirement age, something neither of our pandering political parties would do
I don't know Doc if folks would go nuts. When Reagan and congress did what they did in the 80's no one seemed to give a chit. Some of what they did was raise the age. Cut % you can get for early retirement. And raise limit 10 grand higher for taxes.
I don't think taking it up to 65 for early retirement. Then move it up one year after that till 70 would get to many folks upset. You just have to start with folks 40 years old now to pull it off.
I don't think taking it up to 65 for early retirement. Then move it up one year after that till 70 would get to many folks upset. You just have to start with folks 40 years old now to pull it off.
dr. freeze said:
???????? if i'm not mistaken (and will check my SS statements in a bit to be SURE) but believe that right now, my FULL SS benefits would not kick in until age 72
Why should a peron be made to work who has worked all their life 40+ years for the most part be pushed to work till 70. hell those last 10-15 years are to enjoy no stress and have fun, the last 3-5 you might be sick or health is down so youhave 10 years to enjoy and get paid for all the shit they took in the first case anyway, noway shold a person who has done well be forced to work over 40 years 35 should be tops, you pay in every check but won't get back shit on the most part if you had a avg to above avg job, least they can do is give the people their damn money, like i said everything we do or buy has a tax and steep one, that should be more then enough to run the country alone. let alone the 22.4 to 23 % of our checks not theirs they take from, us hell they have done not much feds for me in my life excpet take the money I work hard for and my familt members and friends who also worked hard, then take us on food, gas like I said anything we buy do or eat it taxed at a steep rate, they need to quit paying the dicks on the hill so much money and great retirement packets and wasting money and run the country like a business. They runit like the mob they steal our hard earned money tax us on everything and give us almost shit in return, and you want to move the age to 70. so i guess people that work hard not the ones who live off the system by poping out 3 to 5 kids never held a real job in their life should not enjoy the fruits of their labor, he is a idea lets kick the walfare rider out of the program and tax the ones who have kids way more then they should because they use the system to live, hud housing, food stamps, walfare, then sell their dop on the side or trade the food stamps for dope, sick of the free loaders start with them not the people who bust their ass for 35-40 years to be robbed bu the fed and support dead beats, yes some people need help with housing, food stamps and stuff, but hell of a lot more people use the programs that I pay for insted of getting their lazy ass up and go to work, and if you want to work there are jobs out there might not be what you want but it is a damn job and money, but better to let me pay for them to live then them work a job because they are to good for it, hell i worked a few jobs in between coaching jobs i did not like but it was a check each week or every 2 weeks, the feds have done almost 0 for me but use my money to waste and use my money to let dead beats slide in life. bs getting sick of seeing women with 3,4 and 5 kids that won't work or even try and there are just as many men who abuse the system I am paying for, but have that extra kid with out a job to get a few more bucks and stamps and into hud housing that I pay for.
sorry 70 age shit does not fly, like i said kick the low lifes off the free food, free med and almost free housing housing and let them carry ttheir own weight, these are people in their 20's to mid 40's who never worked a damn full year straight in their life. They need to start there , and quit wasting money, saw a thing in usa today last week where or week before but feds were paying 3.50 a freaking pencile to a company who supplies the lead to the hill, that is not a waste that is bs and you want me to work to 70, hell i should not even have to pay taxes i have myself set up for retirement and pay enough taxes on everything i do or eat, I don't take shit from any fed program nor have I ever but I sure pay for it.
sorry 70 age shit does not fly, like i said kick the low lifes off the free food, free med and almost free housing housing and let them carry ttheir own weight, these are people in their 20's to mid 40's who never worked a damn full year straight in their life. They need to start there , and quit wasting money, saw a thing in usa today last week where or week before but feds were paying 3.50 a freaking pencile to a company who supplies the lead to the hill, that is not a waste that is bs and you want me to work to 70, hell i should not even have to pay taxes i have myself set up for retirement and pay enough taxes on everything i do or eat, I don't take shit from any fed program nor have I ever but I sure pay for it.
I have a much bigger problem with them doc the anything with ssi all but i should have a choice if I want to pay into it or not, and since I have set myself and and my family started me at a young age and I just added on and kept it going I should be able IMO to say fu quit taking money from me for ssi because I have taken care of my need on my own, hell I can't get anymore then I will get back anyway, so it is all free money for feds now when they take out ssi from me. i paid in for 20 years toped out or think I am so why should they get anymore out of me? But that will never fly they will keep taking and taking. same as taxes paid at end of my ira and m-funds that is bs, they had nothing fed to do with me starting and making money on these funds it was all my and my families work but they will stick their shit stained hands into my pocket again when the time comes. Don't get me wrong I love my country just don't trust feds on either side the repubs which I am on paper nor dems. I also have done my fair share in taxes to voice my thought about feds and will keep being taxed on anything I do or eat, hell even if I killed or caught or grew my own food I would be paying for it still to eat, would be taxed and am on fishing equipment, tax on guns I bought on rounds for the guns tax on licenses to even fish or hunt, the tax on the extra stamps pr permits. They get you anyway they can. They are the ones people on the hill who are set for life they get unreal retirement shit and health care for life. whats your thought on the price of a number 2 pencils that I wrote above in one of my threads?
Doc you are right your tax will not drop. Just like tort reform wont lower your insurance cost. They get reform and they wont offer any rebates. S/S is owed so much from government I cant see how they lower anything. They may as for what comes out of your check take less . But they will get it someplace else from you.
actually tort reform has begun to lower insurance in my home state
that being said i dont believe it is the right solution to the problem
that being said i dont believe it is the right solution to the problem
"Doc you are right your tax will not drop. Just like tort reform wont lower your insurance cost"
Sorry DJV but once again I must trump liberal opinion with fact>
Texas tort reform:
One year later, some physicians say they're reaping big benefits
From the January-February ACP Observer, copyright ? 2005 by the American College of Physicians.
By Bonnie Darves
Sixteen months after Texans approved a constitutional amendment to cap noneconomic damages in medical liability suits, the health care community has little doubt that the measure?Proposition 12?is making a difference where it counts: in lowering malpractice premium rates and reducing the number of lawsuits being filed.
In response to the ballot's passage, for instance, the state's largest professional liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, reduced its rates by 12%, then dropped them another 5%. A member survey by the Texas Hospital Association (THA) found that members' malpractice liability premiums dropped 8% in 2004 and could fall another 17% this year.
And last August, the Texas Hospital Association reported a 70% reduction in the number of lawsuits being filed against the state's hospitals. Analysts also point to the reform's more subtle effects, saying that the exodus of both physicians and insurance carriers from the state has stopped and may even be reversing.
However, not all liability carriers in Texas have dropped premium rates and some physicians here still report having problems finding coverage. And it remains to be seen how soon the passage of Proposition 12?which capped noneconomic damages in liability awards and settlements at $250,000 per physician, with a total noneconomic cap for all parties of $750,000?will affect how doctors here practice medicine.
'A great sigh of relief'
Texas is among 21 states that have instituted caps on noneconomic damages or passed related medical tort reforms. (Last November, tort reform ballot initiatives passed in Nevada and Florida, but failed to move forward in Oregon and Wyoming.) While physicians are still eyeing federal-level reform to address liability-system ills in a wholesale fashion, many analysts say passing states' measures is still physicians' best bet for meaningful reforms. (See "Internists' liability premiums: 2004 highs and lows.")
In the wake of Proposition 12, which ensured the constitutionality of caps approved earlier by the Texas legislature, some Texas physicians already report real premium savings. Neal Sklaver, FACP, a general internist with Medical Specialists Associated in Dallas, for instance, is very pleased that his premiums have dropped roughly $5,000 since the measure passed in September 2003. Even though he has had no judgments against him, his premiums had skyrocketed in 2003 to nearly $18,000 a year.
A former College Regent, Isabel V. Hoverman, FACP, a general internist in Austin, likewise said she and her partners were able to reverse the trend toward double-digit yearly rate hikes. Dr. Hoverman said her malpractice premiums climbed at a rate of between 40% and 45% every year between 2000 and 2003, even though she'd had no malpractice claims filed against her.
Now, however, "We've seen a 48% drop in our rates since the passage of Proposition 12," she said, adding that she and her three partners reduced their policy liability limits since the measure passed?another source of savings.
"Physicians in Texas are breathing a great sigh of relief," said F. David Winter Jr., FACP, the College's Governor for the Northern Texas Chapter. His group, HealthTexas Provider Network, has dropped premiums for its affiliated physicians by 14%. Dr. Winter is vice chair of this 380-physician system, which is affiliated with Dallas' Baylor Health Care System.
Sorry DJV but once again I must trump liberal opinion with fact>
Texas tort reform:
One year later, some physicians say they're reaping big benefits
From the January-February ACP Observer, copyright ? 2005 by the American College of Physicians.
By Bonnie Darves
Sixteen months after Texans approved a constitutional amendment to cap noneconomic damages in medical liability suits, the health care community has little doubt that the measure?Proposition 12?is making a difference where it counts: in lowering malpractice premium rates and reducing the number of lawsuits being filed.
In response to the ballot's passage, for instance, the state's largest professional liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, reduced its rates by 12%, then dropped them another 5%. A member survey by the Texas Hospital Association (THA) found that members' malpractice liability premiums dropped 8% in 2004 and could fall another 17% this year.
And last August, the Texas Hospital Association reported a 70% reduction in the number of lawsuits being filed against the state's hospitals. Analysts also point to the reform's more subtle effects, saying that the exodus of both physicians and insurance carriers from the state has stopped and may even be reversing.
However, not all liability carriers in Texas have dropped premium rates and some physicians here still report having problems finding coverage. And it remains to be seen how soon the passage of Proposition 12?which capped noneconomic damages in liability awards and settlements at $250,000 per physician, with a total noneconomic cap for all parties of $750,000?will affect how doctors here practice medicine.
'A great sigh of relief'
Texas is among 21 states that have instituted caps on noneconomic damages or passed related medical tort reforms. (Last November, tort reform ballot initiatives passed in Nevada and Florida, but failed to move forward in Oregon and Wyoming.) While physicians are still eyeing federal-level reform to address liability-system ills in a wholesale fashion, many analysts say passing states' measures is still physicians' best bet for meaningful reforms. (See "Internists' liability premiums: 2004 highs and lows.")
In the wake of Proposition 12, which ensured the constitutionality of caps approved earlier by the Texas legislature, some Texas physicians already report real premium savings. Neal Sklaver, FACP, a general internist with Medical Specialists Associated in Dallas, for instance, is very pleased that his premiums have dropped roughly $5,000 since the measure passed in September 2003. Even though he has had no judgments against him, his premiums had skyrocketed in 2003 to nearly $18,000 a year.
A former College Regent, Isabel V. Hoverman, FACP, a general internist in Austin, likewise said she and her partners were able to reverse the trend toward double-digit yearly rate hikes. Dr. Hoverman said her malpractice premiums climbed at a rate of between 40% and 45% every year between 2000 and 2003, even though she'd had no malpractice claims filed against her.
Now, however, "We've seen a 48% drop in our rates since the passage of Proposition 12," she said, adding that she and her three partners reduced their policy liability limits since the measure passed?another source of savings.
"Physicians in Texas are breathing a great sigh of relief," said F. David Winter Jr., FACP, the College's Governor for the Northern Texas Chapter. His group, HealthTexas Provider Network, has dropped premiums for its affiliated physicians by 14%. Dr. Winter is vice chair of this 380-physician system, which is affiliated with Dallas' Baylor Health Care System.
