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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (200267)	9/4/2004 7:42:20 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575189

I think you're right. Vaguely recall reading 50% of California's govt health tax obligations are due to LTC bills the govt pays, alone. I just remember thinking California govt could cut its health tax bill by 50% if they mandated LTC insurance. But rather than letting people pay for LTC insurance, the govt allows insurers to cherry pick and reject. (Just like they used to do for health care.) I think the "average" American can afford $500/year in LTC insurance. This would reduce CA's health tax related obligations by a substantial amount, if more people purchased their own LTC insurance. The media could do a better job at educating people on the need to buy it. I wonder if LTC will be an even be a bigger issue than even Soc Sec. RE: "things are a lot cheaper here...." Yes, you're right. I had checked this awhile ago. At least 50% cheaper. Both CA and NY are at least two times more costly. After seeing what happened to my sister, I purchased a LTC insurance for $1k/year thru New York Life Insur (which had the best plan on the market, even better than MetLife, and insures up to $8,500/month, and also includes Rx and home care too, and is indexed to inflation so the $8500/month coverage increases under inflation). Someone that wanted to be insured at 50% (which is really all that's needed in other states), it would only cost around $500/year (or less) in insurance, which is very affordable for many people. The rates above are for someone in their thirties. But LTC insurance gets expensive if you don't get it when you're young, so I think a person should get it right away. Financial planners will tell you that if you have more than a certain amount of money (the range you have, if my estimate is right), you shouldn't get LTC insurance because you can afford to pay for a stay if you need it, which (I think) is bad advice - what FP's don't realize is regardless of how much money you have, having LTC insurance avoids any cashflow problems and it also gives you access into the better firms (if you're a 'cash-payer', they view you as a higher business risk than an insured NYLI). And the last thing you want to be doing is drawing down $8500/month (or even $3,000/mo in other states) when Nasdaq is in the doghouse. RE: "one way in which to cure apathy is have everyone that gets a paycheck, to pay their own taxes instead of having their employer withhold it." I agree with that. People don't realize they are paying twice the fica than what they really are, because it is "hidden" from them. At a minimum, the employer's fica contribution should be shown on a paycheck, but for some strange reason, it is not. Is there a law that says employers can’t put display the employer's payment of fica on a paycheck – that they have to “hide” this payment that goes to the govt? I had someone ask our payroll firm to show it on the paycheck, but the payroll firm wouldn’t. I never understood why. I don't see anything wrong with the following entry: "Employer Fica Contribution $_____" Regards, Amy J