Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (72106)	1/12/2000 5:05:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

They say, "why should I have to spend my own money instead of leaving it for my kids?" Well, duh, it's the law. Well, no, it isn't the law. What they're doing is legal, and that makes it the law too. If the goverment wanted it not to be the law, they should make it illegal. Greed, yes. But in this case, also the very deep and basic human desire to benefit your children over society at large. Not many parents, given the choice, would say "yes, I could save this money for my children, but I would rather it go to the government."

To: Ilaine who wrote (72106)	1/12/2000 5:42:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 108807

Well, we have a lot of that here too - shifting of assets, etc. And I think it was Rambi who said earlier that she saw a lot of young people try to manipulate the system (and/or their parents) to get at assets too. This stuff is all really bad, but its hard to police because its all on an individual basis. To me however, it is not on the same level as these tax increase and freeze laws - simply because legislating financial discrimination against the young is a little too much for me to take. You can't really say that the aarp and politicians involved with these colossal tax increases on SS didn't know that the ponzi scheme structure was screwing the young - of course they knew, but they didn't care. The aarp is the worst. I don't know who it is on this thread that keeps telling me that SS is "not broke" "solvent", etc. She is obviously parroting info she gets from the aarp - of course they conveniently leaving off any discussion of the post-boomer people, their entire position is a deliberate lie.

To: Ilaine who wrote (72106)	1/13/2000 1:01:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Medicare is not needs tested. Medicaid is. Fraudulent transfer to become eligible for medicaid is a serious problem, but usually takes care of itself. When the elder transfers property to a child to become eligible for medicaid the child usually takes it seriously and keeps it for herself. Medicaid care is so wretched, that in many cases the elder dies prematurely. This leads to the elder believing the child has taken advantage of her and hating the child and regretting the chisel; the child usually believes she is wicked and crooked, and, regretting it bitterly, will hang or poison herself or at least be so miserable that she will not pull the same chisel as her mother tried to pull off. So it all comes out in the wash.

To: Ilaine who wrote (72106)	1/13/2000 2:17:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There's also plenty of people who get a free ride on either SS or Medicare, or both. First off, you only need earn $ 3000 a year to earn credits toward eligibility, even now. That's doesn't reflect the costs needed to maintain the system. Secondly, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit, they rebate payroll taxes for many future beneficiaties, although they still earn credits toward eligibility.