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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mel221 who wrote (131299)	2/25/2013 7:06:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Perhaps. But starting next year, I will get Obamacare subsidies while earning 70K... that's a good start. What Obamacare subsidies will you be getting next year? No winger rants.......just the facts.

To: mel221 who wrote (131299)	2/25/2013 10:22:40 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

We libs have lots of ideas: universal health care, FREE pre school for all kids, free education up to a PHD and reinstitution of unions, raising the minimum wage a lot and making the rich pay their fair share of societies needs. And take the cap off SS entirely. <<Until then, we can work together to expand SS cola rates. Perhaps we can even create some new entitlements that transfer income from the young to the old. I'm sure you have lots of ideas.

To: mel221 who wrote (131299)	2/25/2013 10:56:12 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

"Until then, we can work together to expand SS cola rates.:" Cool. First we have to remove the cap on earnings. That'll fix SS for 75 years. Then we drop the starting age to 60 for a few years, to get some almost old farts out of the way so that the kids can start their careers. How Would You Fix Social Security? By Kevin Drum \| Sat Jul. 10, 2010 9:32 AM PDT Responding to yesterday's post showing that high-income men live quite a bit longer than low-income men, an anonymous commenter writes: [1] The data is a very strong argument for removing the ceiling on Social Security payments — that is, collecting Social Security on 100% of wages, no matter how high (while not adjusting benefits). That's because the Social Security system, now, assumes that life expectancy is the same for low-income and high-income workers, while in fact low-income workers collect benefits for far fewer years. So higher-income workers should pay more than they do today. That's an interesting point, no? Fair is fair. (Though you can adjust that 100% to 90% or 95% or whatever floats your social equity boat.) And while we're on the subject, the Congressional Budget Office recently issued a report (here [2]) that includes a nice table that allows you to play the Social Security game from the comfort of your own home. Basically, CBO estimates that Social Security is out of balance by 0.6% of GDP over the next 75 years, which means you need to come up with a basket of changes from their list that adds up to 0.6%. So choose away and build your own Social Security rescue plan! And when you're done with that relatively trivial exercise, it'll be time to move on to Medicare. Unfortunately, that's a wee bit harder and no handy little table will provide the answers. Which, of course, is why people prefer spending their time on Social Security. It's mostly grandstanding, but if they ever actually fixed it they'd have no choice but to tackle genuinely difficult problems. And what kind of moron gets elected to Congress to do that? <IMG src="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Social_Security_CBO_Options.jpg" Source URL: motherjones.com Links: [1] motherjones.com [2] cbo.gov