Email, to a friend, the url of your favourite recent post, to expand the Shrewd'm community.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 7
Marge Green rueing that America has "socialist" Medicare and Social Security.
Any Body ready to give up SS and Medicare so that they can live an unfettered, free
life ?? If so, please stand up and let everybody know that you ain't standing for no
socialism. Please copy and post some type of documentation that proves y'all are not falling into that leftist, woke trap so we can all publicly acknowledge your putting your money where your mouth is ethos.
I'm not yet on SS or Medicare, put I damn well like the thought that it's waiting for me,
but I guess that makes me woke in some folks eyes, lol.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marjorie-t...
No. of Recommendations: 3
I've marveled that since I got back stateside nearly everything is covered by Medicare except for a $5 or $25 medicine charge on occasion. I've been looking at my finances and getting them straight in my mind, and need to see if my extra medical coverage is actually needed. This always confuses me and I'm not sure how to unconfuse myself. My brother is around but I really hesitate to enlist him. He qualifies for VA (I earn to much), is a MAGA De Santis type. I accidentally talked about Eric Clapton going anti vaxx during the pandemic to find out he didn't get any boosters and informed me that if I was only following twitter or FB, or other mainstream media that I wasn't getting the full story. I asked him if he was fully anti-vax, against all vaccines and he didn't answer and launched into what he wanted to talk about.
So I'll just plug away like I normally do.
Since he's dependent on SS and uses Medicare ( or his wife) I don't think he's against that yet. But it's a little sad that he seems to be off in the misinfo zone.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tell the Greedy Ones----- take a break from fighting for their SALT deductions and write letters to the government that they want to pay FICA on income over $137k, no donut, no waiting till $400k.
but no.
The Greedy ones won't do that.
No. of Recommendations: 5
UpNorthJoe: Marge Green ruing that America has "socialist" Medicare and Social Security.
That was one weird speech by MTG at the Turning Point Action Conference. She's usually pretty good at getting the crowd to chant and jeer but they were mostly silent. And she wasn't just denouncing Medicare and Social Security, she was making what she must have thought was a clever comparison between LBJ and Biden: both senators, both Veeps, and Johnson's "big socialist programs were the Great Society. The Great Society were big government programs to address education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity and big labor and labor unions."
The audience sat there, silent.
Well, when rattled off one after the other who's going to boo Medicare and Social Security? Or public education, medical care, solving urban problems, solving rural poverty, creating roads, bridges, railroads, and airports, addressing hunger and homelessness?
She then said that Biden's Build Back Better is today's Great Society program and Joe's not done yet.
Hhmmm... that was sounding more and more like a Joe Biden reelection campaign commercial. I mean, that's exactly what Biden says: "We still have work to do. We're not done yet." Give us four more years.
All the Biden campaign has to do is slap some video onto her speech of Greene bragging about the $2.5 billion going to her district for solar panel production thanks to Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which the Georgia republican, along with all of her GOP colleagues, opposed, and he's got a pretty compelling reelection ad.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I had the same thoughts as you while listening to her.
I tune out all culture war and woke BS, but listen intently when politicians from both sides
start telling us how they really think about things that are important to working class
Americans. I can't vote against Green, as not in her State, but I sure can vote against any R that is implicitly or explicitly acting like they share her views in my State level elections, and of course for President. I am not hearing much good coming from the R's. I am interested in hearing Christie's views, he is showing indications that he's a rational human being.
It doesn't appear that Greene's constituency is made up of wealthy people, I wonder how many retirees in her district could survive a cut or even elimination of SS and Medicare/Medicaid ?
I can only hope that these people can unemotionally and logically listen to the words coming out of Greene's mouth. I have my doubts, lol.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/congressional-distr...
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, that didn't take long. The Lincoln Project turned her speech into a reelect Joe Biden ad by lunchtime:
:-)
No. of Recommendations: 2
Any Body ready to give up SS and Medicare so that they can live an unfettered, free
life ?? It's complicated.
At age 30, I would have said "yes" - forego any Social Security benefits in exchange for me not paying into the system and me keeping my company's contribution. The math on the rate of return is horrific for social security.
https://financialducksinarow.com/social-security-m...I've paid the maximum tax each year since 2001 and my employer has matched it. (The tax is 6.2% up to the max level of earnings, which you can see in the table).
So since then me and my employer have contributed a total of $322,000 (give or take).
Let's say someone would have offered me the following deal: I get to keep
half of what my employer and I contribute to SS for myself to invest - pre tax - however I see fit.
Had that money been invested in something that paid out at 3% year on year it would be worth $226,000 today.
Had that money been invested in something that paid out at 6% year on year it would be worth $325,000 today.
If I choose to work until age 70, and assuming the tax rate and max income limit stay the same for next 20 years:
At 3%: $653,000
At 6%: $1.34M
Assume I would live to be 94. I'd be able to pull out $27k a year for 24 years for the 3% and $55k a year for the 6% case.
Now. How much am I going to get in actual Social Security benefits? Maybe $24k a year, if the program even stays around.
We can do similar math on Medicare.
So, yeah. There's a compelling argument that for younger people who think they'll have high earnings for their careers that SS isn't a great deal. Obviously for some folks it is a good deal.
But we should have choices.
No. of Recommendations: 4
It's complicated.
At age 30, I would have said "yes" - forego any Social Security benefits
I might have said the same. But at 72 I look at my brother and his wife and say, "Thank God for Social Security and medicare and VA Medicine. Otherwise I'd be having to house both him and his wife, and cover the med bills. I am so happy that I don't have to take care of them. And I realize there have to be plenty of other people entirely dependent on SS and Medicare at the end of their lives and don't resent my contributions one bit. I am doing fine and will continue to do fine. I think the return on SS could be improved, but Congress is in charge of that - and Reagan needed it to make his budget look OK. It's one of those odd things, people who are dependent on SS and Medicare will vote to get rid of it.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dope1: Let's say someone would have offered me the following deal: I get to keep half of what my employer and I contribute to SS for myself to invest - pre tax - however I see fit.
Had that money been invested in something that paid out at 3% year on year it would be worth $226,000 today.
Had that money been invested in something that paid out at 6% year on year it would be worth $325,000 today.
First, that's a rather hopeful expectation. If you're investing in CDs or other shorter term (say 5 years) fixed rate investments, 6% is a bit optimistic, isn't it? And if you're thinking of investing in the stock market, well, a lot of people have bad years when they lose significant portions of their principle.
Which brings me to another point: as you know, social security is more of an "insurance" plan to keep you from eating dog food, or nothing, or from living on the street when you're 70. Social security is not meant to replace your income or enable you to travel the world when you retire, right?
Also, if you have been maxing out your contributions each year for more than 20 years and plan to continue to do so as you suggest, then your $24,000/year benefits guesstimate is too low. You don't disclose your earnings (nor would I expect you to) but today the maximum benefit is $4,194 per month (about twice what you're guessing), assuming you delay claiming benefits until you are 70, again as you suggested.
No. of Recommendations: 1
First, that's a rather hopeful expectation. If you're investing in CDs or other shorter term (say 5 years) fixed rate investments, 6% is a bit optimistic, isn't it? And if you're thinking of investing in the stock market, well, a lot of people have bad years when they lose significant portions of their principle.Depends on what you pick.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4502739-average-s...10% average annual return, not adjusting for inflation, give or take.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical...Just an S&P index fund would have gone from 2379 in 2001 to 4450 now; that's an average of ~2.8% compound annual growth per year, which is in the low range of my model. Note that in 2001 you'd have been buying high.
...
and that still matches what I would get if I went with Social Security. On only HALF the investment.
Which brings me to another point: as you know, social security is more of an "insurance" plan to keep you from eating dog food, or nothing, or from living on the street when you're 70. Social security is not meant to replace your income or enable you to travel the world when you retire, right?Of course. Unfortunately, it's sold as retirement income.
Also, if you have been maxing out your contributions each year for more than 20 years and plan to continue to do so as you suggest, then your $24,000/year benefits guesstimate is too low. You don't disclose your earnings (nor would I expect you to) but today the maximum benefit is $4,194 per month (about twice what you're guessing), assuming you delay claiming benefits until you are 70, again as you suggested....which would be matched pretty closely by my 3% estimate if I'd been allowed to invest my entire SS contributions over that time.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually, you can login to ss.gov and see what you estimated benefits will be. So you don't have to speculate "maybe $24K a year".
When I was young, I was against SS. I wanted an opt-out option. In hindsight, I would have been fine doing that (based on the fact that I retired last year without SS). But the government could potentially have to pay a lot more is welfare if they didn't have SS in place, because lots and lots of folks don't save (or, in many cases, don't earn enough to save much even if they wanted to). If people could opt-out, I would insist on a feature that says "don't come seeking welfare or food stamps if you blow all your money". There have to be consequences (just like with bank bail-outs...we shouldn't bail those effers out without getting to toss a lot of them in prison).
In the end I looked at it as paying for mom. She got SS, and it was my payroll deductions that were funding it. OK fine.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If people could opt-out, I would insist on a feature that says "don't come seeking welfare or food stamps if you blow all your money" - 1pg
----------------------
Agree. And here is another,
If people sign a contract to repay a student loan, I would insist they do exactly that and don't come seeking debt forgiveness if you got a useless degree in Art History and now can't earn a living.
In the the face of SCOTUS declaring student debt forgiveness by executive action is unconstitutional, we have Biden already back with another $38B student loan give away program. Those fools who repaid their debt or went to trade school sure are chumps.
No. of Recommendations: 0
If people could opt-out, I would insist on a feature that says "don't come seeking welfare or food stamps if you blow all your money". There have to be consequences (just like with bank bail-outs...we shouldn't bail those effers out without getting to toss a lot of them in prison).
And that's fine. The 30 year old me would have taken that deal in a heartbeat.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dope1: 10% average annual return, not adjusting for inflation, give or take.
Yeah, well adjusting for inflation matters. And you don't include any fees in your numbers, either. But the bottom line is that your plan carries considerable risk and social security as it is carries almost no risk.
onepoorguy: If people could opt-out, I would insist on a feature that says "don't come seeking welfare or food stamps if you blow all your money".
Two problems: one, we're not about to let 90-year-olds starve to death (at least I hope we're not become that Trumpian yet); and two, how do we pay for people already on social security if some people can opt-out? Either they have to continue to fund current retirees or a massive tax hike will be necessary to fill that void.
bighairyguy: If people sign a contract to repay a student loan, I would insist they do exactly that...a useless degree in Art History...
I thought it was 'lesbian dance theory.'
bighairyguy: Those fools who repaid their debt or went to trade school sure are chumps.
Ahh, the suckers' dilemma, a variation of the Public Goods game.
No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairyguy: Those fools who repaid their debt or went to trade school sure are chumps.
Ahh, the suckers' dilemma, a variation of the Public Goods game. = commoner
======================
I submit that in the public goods game, a plumber or barista with no school debt contributes more to the "public pot" than an unemployed Art History major with $100,000 of student loan debt. And the Art History major actually removes funds from the public pot when Biden forgives his student debt.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike: I submit that in the public goods game, a plumber or barista with no school debt contributes more to the "public pot" than an unemployed Art History major with $100,000 of student loan debt. And the Art History major actually removes funds from the public pot when Biden forgives his student debt.
Funny that you mentioned baristas. Ted Cruz complained that Biden's plan would pay the loans of 'slacker baristas'. Upthread I mentioned 'lesbian dance theory' to see if anyone recognized that's what Lauren Boebert called 'em... one-upping Cruz by throwing in a homophobic slur.
As for the Public Goods game, a couple of distinguishing features that often pop up are anger at being made to feel foolish and the impulse toward compassion or mercy being twisted into evidence of foolishness.
I worked a gap year and summers to pay for my undergraduate degree and went to graduate school while working full-time to pay for that degree but am happy to see these student loans partially forgiven.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Two problems: one, we're not about to let 90-year-olds starve to death (at least I hope we're not become that Trumpian yet); and two, how do we pay for people already on social security if some people can opt-out? Either they have to continue to fund current retirees or a massive tax hike will be necessary to fill that void.
We would have to be willing to let them starve if we had an opt-out feature. I'm not saying I support that, I'm just sayin'.
We would have to fund current recipients the same way we funded the original recipients in 1933. Again, I don't support that. But that's the answer to your question.
The 25 yr-old me would have jumped at that opt-out option. The 60 yr-old me realizes that, while I would have been fine without (maybe better?), we would have a lot of 90 yr-olds starving. If they even made it to 90. I realize that Dope1, and you, and me, and everyone here is part of the top few percent because we're here (or the old TMF). Most of the bottom 90% don't frequent investment websites, or know anything about investing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Aren't the Art History grad and the barista the same person?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Love both.
As do multiple people whose spouses would NOT have ever gotten SS - - but now - they DO thanks to someone's free or slightly discounted advice.
Don't forget to add ACA.
I'm entitled to around $8000 per year of that per year.
That plus $3200 in a tax refund and no income taxed nor touched.
In this equation, everyone - gets what they deserve.
It's like Ketosis - but with taxes.
The no tax lifestyle - hell yes.
Hopefully the greedy upper income Liberals - come out ardently in favor of NOT capping FICA contributions at a certain income threshold. Like SALT deduction, these greedy 20%'ers of America need to be cut down to size.
