Displaying 1 - 10 of 219 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Mar 28, 2015 03:20 PM
    Last: 11d
    32k
    Maronita1 Wrote:

    People do NOT seem to realize you were NOT meant to live off Social Security. Social Security was INTENDED to be 1/3 of your retirement. People were SUPPOSED to also save for their retirement (1/3) and finally the government EXPECTED that employers would give retirement benefit (1/3). UNFORTUNATELY, MOST do NOT save for retirement AND many employers no longer give retirement benefits.

    Social Security was also passed during a time when the average person died before they even became eligible for it.

    Yes, Social Security was never meant to be the only form of financial security for retirees, but it has become that for millions of people now that major corporations no longer provide pensions and 401k's rise and fall with the stock market, which millions of people found out in 2008-09.

    Many people don't save what they need to for retirement because they can't save what they need to for retirement. The average American hasn't received a raise in decades. Sure, they may have made more money per year, but the cost of living has far outpaced any extra money they have made.

    It's not as simple as blaming the victim. Life is far more complicated than that.

  • Nov 01, 2017 04:45 PM
    Last: 13d
    770
    Maronita1 Wrote: WHEN I worked for Social Security it was explained to us that the real reason (according to management at the time) we have a problem with being able to continue to pay benefits far into the future is simply because of ABORTION. If all those children who were aborted had instead been born we (according to management at the time) would have plenty of people working and paying into the system to cover all those applying for benefits TODAY!

    That is an absurd argument if it's true your management actually said that.

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 13d
    554
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Wait, I'm confused.. didn't you say he ended subsidies? Or did you mean that he ended some levels of subsidies, but now that costs rise, they qualify for different brackets or something?

    I should have been more clear in my original post. The cost-sharing subsidies are mandated in the law, so President Trump can't unilaterally say they aren't lawful. What he did is say the government won't give payments to the insurance companies that are mandated by the law to provide those subsides.

    After reading up on it more, it appears the insurance companies already planned for that and factored it into the prices of their plans. It's true there will be some winners and losers here, but the most vulnerable Americans will still be able to obtain modestly priced health insurance.

    What's even more confusing is that the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit that focuses on healthcare policy, predicted President Trump's decision will wind up costing the government more because "eliminating cost-sharing reduction subsidies will save $10 billion in 2018, but the government will spend $12.3 billion because of the higher premiums the decision causes."

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 13d
    554

    What's ironic about this whole thing is that it appears this had the exact opposite effect of what President Trump had hoped for. More people now qualify for the subsidies, which are required by law to rise with the cost of a health insurance plan. So if a health insurance plan rises by 80% then the subsidy must rise along with it.

    He may have inadvertently made it so more, not less, people are able to obtain health coverage.

  • Nov 01, 2017 04:45 PM
    Last: 13d
    770

    I don't see a problem with taxing income people make outside of their Social Security paychecks, especially if they are given a $32,000 buffer.

    Take my in-laws as an example. They are both retired and held off on drawing their SS benefits until they reach full retirment age. My father-in-law turned 70 this year and began drawing his benefits because he basically had to.

    He and my mother-in-law have a handful of rental properties, which provides them a healthy amount of additional income. I'm sure he doesn't necessarily enjoy paying taxes on the income he and my mother-in-law receive from the renters of their properties, but he's never once complained or said he thinks paying taxes on that income is a punishment.

    The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of retirees are not making an additional $32,000 a year on top of their Social Security income and I don't really see a problem with individuals or couples paying taxes on the income above that threshold.


    My main issue with the Social Security age cap is that people are living longer and longer and therefore receiving their benefits for decades instead of years. The average person didn't even live long enough to benefit from Social Security when it was first passed, but now they are living longer than ever. Add in the fact that Baby Boomers are beginning to draw on their benefits and we have a recipe for disaster if drastic measures aren't made soon.

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 13d
    554

    President Trump announced that he will unilaterally end Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies that help millions of Americans pay their monthly premiums for health coverage. The move could make it nearly impossible for many Americans to continue receiving coverage. Just under six million Americans, or 57% of all people using the health insurance exchange, will now see their subsidy vanish overnight.

    The President does have the legal authority to do this without Congressional approval, so there is little to nothing you can do if you are currently receiving a subsidy to help pay for your health insurance monthly premium outside of calling or writing your Representative and Senators to voice your displeasure with the Presidents move because if the people who represent you hear from you they will tend to listen.

  • Oct 06, 2017 03:06 PM
    Last: 14d
    841

    Yea, I'm not sure what it would be replaced with either. Whatever it is, it would be something that could be used to track you to make sure you're paying all your taxes. And as you pointed out, hackers will always find a way to get around even the best security. So I don't know if anything would come of this because in the end it wouldn't really change anything.

    I'm far more concerned about cyber security than how the government makes sure I pay my taxes.

  • Oct 03, 2017 02:33 PM
    Last: 4d
    778

    Congressional Republicans released their long awaited blueprint for an overhaul of the tax system and, not surprisingly, there are some winners and losers. While it's still very early in the process, the plan as written would be the first major rewrite of the tax code since the early days of the Bush Administration.

    The proposal suggests narrowing down the tax brackets into three categories, four less than the current seven brackets. The poorest Americans would see an increase from 10% to 12% while the wealthiest Americans would see a decrease from 39.6% to 35%. The plan currently doesn't stipulate what the income limits are for each of the three proposed brackets of 12%, 25%, and 35%.

    The business tax rate would drop dramatically from 35% to 20% while also getting rid of many deductions business take advantage of.

    Other things in the initial blueprint foresee a larger standard deduction for individuals while getting rid of many popular deductions at the same time. It would also repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the Estate Tax - two taxes that the only the wealthiest Americans pay.

    Republicans have not explained how they intend to pay for the proposal, which would certainly add billions of dollars to both the debt and deficit, which will be a test to see if Republicans truly care about those two or if they simply used them as talking points during the Obama era.

    As I said earlier, we're still in the very beginning stages of negotiations, but this plan or one similar to it stands a very good chance of passing the Republican Congress.

    Is anyone paying attention to the negotiations? If so, what do you think of the proposal as it's currently written?

  • Aug 27, 2017 02:38 PM
    Last: 2mo
    10k
    My hope is to be able to wait as long as possible to take mine, but I still have many more years of work before I can even consider it. My parents are both recently retired though and they are both waiting until 70 to begin collecting.
  • Aug 05, 2017 08:23 PM
    Last: 3mo
    1.7k

    Have you tried calling your insurance provider? They can usually explain what is or isn't covered.