goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 10, 2012, 11:25:55 AM
-
All money belongs to the government, and what it doesn't take from you is your allowance for doing your chores.
"The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy are a major driver of our deficit," he argued in 12-minute remarks. "We can't afford to keep that up, not right now."
It's just weird that people can think this way in the United States where we have a constitution that was designed to protect people and their property from the government.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
-
All money belongs to the government, and what it doesn't take from you is your allowance for doing your chores.
"The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy are a major driver of our deficit," he argued in 12-minute remarks. "We can't afford to keep that up, not right now."
It's just weird that people can think this way in the United States where we have a constitution that was designed to protect people and their property from the government.
I always hate that when they say that. If they would just say, "The revenue we are losing on these tax cuts...." it would sound so much better/accurate.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
Yes, but not everyone who receives it is/was a taxpayer.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
not if you die before you have the ability to receive it.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
not if you die before you have the ability to receive it.
I think this is the idea behind Obamacare.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.
What else would social security be seen as?
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.
What else would social security be seen as?
If you do the math, it basically earns an annual rate of less than 2% for the average American. Probably why he says lol at it being an investment vehicle.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.
What else would social security be seen as?
If you do the math, it basically earns an annual rate of less than 2% for the average American. Probably why he says lol at it being an investment vehicle.
Yeah, it's a crappy investment, but it's still an investment. He also claimed that most Americans get much more than they put in. Adjusting for inflation, most Americans actually get much less.
-
Don't know if I should put this here or not, but here is my solution to SS:
It is an opt in program that allows the Government to continue charging me and my employer at the same rate. However, the government gets to keep 75% of what it collects and it can use that to pay for other people's SS benefits when the funds run out. I NEVER get any of this money or any hand out from the government as it relates to SS. I get to choose how to invest the remaining 25% and it remains mine. The only caveat is that if I am injured on the job in the first 5 years of opting in, then I get some sort of disability coverage.
What I am saying is basically that if I were to make $100k/yr, I am fine with letting the gov have roughly $9k to support other people's SS benefits who don't opt in or are already receiving SS. I think I can outperform what the government is doing with the entire $12k if I just have control over $3k. If I am wrong, at least I know that what I invest will still be available for me whenever I retire. I am not certain that very much of it will be with the current system.
-
Don't know if I should put this here or not, but here is my solution to SS:
It is an opt in program that allows the Government to continue charging me and my employer at the same rate. However, the government gets to keep 75% of what it collects and it can use that to pay for other people's SS benefits when the funds run out. I NEVER get any of this money or any hand out from the government as it relates to SS. I get to choose how to invest the remaining 25% and it remains mine. The only caveat is that if I am injured on the job in the first 5 years of opting in, then I get some sort of disability coverage.
What I am saying is basically that if I were to make $100k/yr, I am fine with letting the gov have roughly $9k to support other people's SS benefits who don't opt in or are already receiving SS. I think I can outperform what the government is doing with the entire $12k if I just have control over $3k. If I am wrong, at least I know that what I invest will still be available for me whenever I retire. I am not certain that very much of it will be with the current system.
It would take an incredible performance to outperform $12k at 2% with only $3k, though. Just going with the $12k at 2% seems like the much smarter decision here.
-
It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.
-
OMG HE SAID IT AGAIN!?
-
OMG HE SAID IT AGAIN!?
SD, this is not KK related.
-
It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.
Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.
-
It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.
Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.
Sorry, typo on my part. It takes 30 years. Again, I am not just trying to make my life better, I am trying to solve the broken system that is SS. I may not make as much money, but at least the system I propose gives me control and I am confident that something will be there for me when I want it.
-
It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.
Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.
Sorry, typo on my part. It takes 30 years. Again, I am not just trying to make my life better, I am trying to solve the broken system that is SS. I may not make as much money, but at least the system I propose gives me control and I am confident that something will be there for me when I want it.
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fluminescencias.blogspot.com%2Fuploaded_images%2FArthur-and-Bedevere-and-the-Knights-of-Ni-715052.jpg&hash=2c5ed96daa2742a3285eb952c51350a22bd4d452)
"he said it again!!"
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
Save money on overseas military cutbacks, keep SS and medicare afloat for current dependents and let future would be dependents opt out rather than pay in going forward while working to phase them out completely.
-
Time to cut social security and medicare. Amirite?
It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.
unearned? Don't taxpayers pay in?
You pay in much less than you receive.
Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?
Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.
What else would social security be seen as?
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
-
Kill or be killed.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
lulz
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
well it kinda is
If there's a problem, the fix is more money.
or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.
-
jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards
absolute idiots and crazy people
-
jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards
absolute idiots and crazy people
lol
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.
-
jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards
absolute idiots and crazy people
Chings if you dont like the pit then you can getttttt out
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.
06 once claimed that it doesn't matter how much money the government spends because we only owe ourselves, so you know where he's coming from.
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
well it kinda is
If there's a problem, the fix is more money.
or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.
This is the definition of government run programs. Obamacare will be a true gem.
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
well it kinda is
If there's a problem, the fix is more money.
or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.
This is the definition of government run programs. Obamacare will be a true gem.
not necessarily. Obamacare is designed to expand services at the expense of the Federal Government via Big Pharma, taxes, savings. Now can we make it as far as we need to for the program to begin payback? Is the CBO estimate for initial and short terms costs a figure from deep within their rectums? Who knows.
SS was never a retirement system. That is one thing the baby boomers who bitch about entitlements for the 47%/darkies fail to realize.
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.
Exactly. Some people . . .
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
-
Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.
I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.
06 once claimed that it doesn't matter how much money the government spends because we only owe ourselves, so you know where he's coming from.
Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
Yeah, and if it goes away, those people will be back to having to purchase their own healthcare. It's not like social security where the affected people would lose a lifetime of savings accumulated from a system they were forced to participate in. The people who get screwed if this goes away contributed nothing.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
link please
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
link please
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care?source=health-care-soundbite (http://www.barackobama.com/health-care?source=health-care-soundbite)
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
link please
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixRRuzmxzTg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixRRuzmxzTg)
Clearly he's estimating that 3/4 of the people that will end up paying the penalty will fall in that income range. Obviously that's not remotely close to what dougie claims, but you can google "Stephen Moore 75%" for evidence that there are plenty of people being misled.
-
Why do birther pit'rs quote the entire rough ridin' block of quotes rather than the most recent one or two?
Mods, move my post to conspiracy question thread if warranted.
-
It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.
That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.
$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482
Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.
The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.
I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.
Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.
This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?
Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.
Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.
link please
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixRRuzmxzTg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixRRuzmxzTg)
Clearly he's estimating that 3/4 of the people that will end up paying the penalty will fall in that income range. Obviously that's not remotely close to what dougie claims, but you can google "Stephen Moore 75%" for evidence that there are plenty of people being misled.
Why do birther pit'rs quote the entire rough ridin' block of quotes rather than the most recent one or two?
Mods, move my post to conspiracy question thread if warranted.
FYP, you're welcome.