Displaying 41 - 50 of 232 Forum PostsPrev 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Nov 21, 2017 08:20 AM
    Last: 2mo

    Here's a good video giving a much better breakdown of CHIP expiring, and what bills are currently on the table, awaiting a possible renewal vote from congress:

  • Nov 21, 2017 08:20 AM
    Last: 2mo

    The main headline from CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) expiring reads like this:

    'Up to 9 million children could lose their health insurance over the course of 2018'.

    That is, if Congress can't get their collective acts together to renew the program in some sort of spending bill they can reasonably agree upon.

    Here's an exert to consider for what this will mean on a state to state basis:

    According the government's report, two states — Arizona and Minnesota — are set to run out of CHIP funding by December. In the first three months of 2018, an additional 27 states will deplete their CHIP funding, as will the District of Columbia. Another 19 states will run out of CHIP funds in between April and June.

    There's still time to renew. But the year's end is coming quick. We have holidays a plenty coming. So if you're child is on CHIP or you know someone who's is and needs this program, I would encourage any and all to contact their congress people and urge them to get this program reinstated.

  • Aug 13, 2017 04:29 AM
    Last: 6d
    Maronita1 Wrote: I personally think we should get REAL cost of living increases based on the cost of living IN THE STATE WE RESIDE and not one cost of living for the whole country. The cost of living in Massachusetts is VERY different from the cost of living in Missouri for example!

    Interesting point. To my mind, that would mean an entire overhaul of the way Social Security works though. Because it's a national program, they take the national average.

    So if the payout is based off of where you live for COL increases, the amount of SS they take out of your check while you pay on it your whole working life would have to be different depending on the location you live in at the time. And that could get messy. What if people lived in the cheapest COL area to avoid paying higher SS taxes, and then when they retire move to a higher COL area and get more than the actually put in? Or something like that.

    I think that would be the fundamental problem with a national program adjusting for every individual's specific COL increase. That would be much more possible if SS benefits were run by the states only. And then I'm sure it would be much harder for people to freely move to wherever they wanted. Might be wrong on that, just seems it would make it much more complicated.

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 3mo
    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?
  • Nov 01, 2017 04:45 PM
    Last: 3mo

    This is a new one on me. I spend a good bit of time keeping up with SS benefit news and info, and it can get pretty complicated quick. Just came across a CNBC article detailing the very real possibility of having to deal with what they dub the 'tax torpedo' for social security retirees.

    Basically, it has to do with how much the government CAN tax your SS benefits once you retire, depending on 2 factors: what age you retire and how much other income you are drawing.

    Surprise, surprise, if you retire at max retirement age, age 70, and if you are not making more than $25-32K a year in additional income, you will get hit the least. I think. Again, it's a bit confusing.. if you understand this, please chime in and clarify.

    But my understanding is that if you retirement early, or even at FRA (full retirement age) your benefits can fall under higher tax %s quickly. And it gets worse when you have other steady streams of earned income coming in.

    This honestly makes me annoyed and somewhat angry and dismayed to read. You pay into this mandatory retirement account all your working life. And on the backend, if you need the money early, and/or if you have managed to set up other solid income streams, they punish you for it. Is that about the take of it in your opinion? Or does this 'tax torpedo' make sense economically speaking?

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 3mo
    I think this is a calculated move, to get people on the fence much more likely to be against Obamacare (ACA). Even if they know he is making ACA worse, once it passes, ACA will in effect be much worse and far less affordable for the middle class. So repeal and replace could be much more likely as a result.
  • Oct 06, 2017 03:06 PM
    Last: 3mo

    Definitely interesting. Is there any good suggestions as to what to replace an SS# with? That article cites 'using public key encryption' as a possible replacement. Sounds like more of the same to me. That would still be a password of sorts, just like our current 9 digit passcode.

    Maybe it will be much harder to steal. Probably so. In that case would be good from an identity theft standpoint. But from a 'libertarian, I don't want the government to give me a number that identifies me as a person' standpoint, exactly the same.

  • Oct 03, 2017 02:33 PM
    Last: 1mo

    Definitely still a work in progress it seems. I am interested though to see how this all shakes out. Some of the plan I am actually very FOR, but curious if it's actually possible. Here's a USA Today exert to consider, on current proposed changes to the tax brackets and standard deductions:

    The seven individual income tax brackets in place now, which range from 10% to 39.6%, would be replaced by 12%, 25% and 35%.

    The proposed bottom rate of 12% is higher than the 10% the White House said it was seeking in a one-page list of goals for tax reform released in April. But people paying 10% now may not owe any tax under the new plan.

    "We flatten out the tax code, lowering the rates at every level so people can keep more of what they earn," said Rep Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "That means the 15% rate today will be lowered to 12. The 10% rate today will go to zero. The tax elevator goes down at every level."

    The plan would nearly double the standard deduction, the amount that's subtracted from incomes before the tax rate is applied. The deduction would grow from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.

    Some of that increase, however, would be offset by the elimination of personal exemptions for a taxpayer and spouse. In 2017, those exemptions were worth $4,050, meaning a taxpayer and spouse could reduce their income by $8,100 before calculating how much tax was owed.

    So I am actually for simplifying the tax code in favor of more uniform standard deductions vs several niche ones that not everyone qualifies for, like being married or owning a house, having several dependents, etc. I don't believe that those paying 10% will owe nothing though. That doesn't seem plausible, especially if you make all the other cuts to the higher brackets and business tax %s as well. Would be very nice for low income families though.

    I have hoped and wondered for a long time if a more simplified tax code was even possible, as complicated as we have made it over the decades. While this is still a work in progress, honestly, I'm kind of rooting for it to maintain the spirit of simplicity it currently holds, and to make it through. One of the few Trump moves I am intrigued by.

  • May 18, 2017 04:11 PM
    Last: 4mo
    Jack Wrote:

    Do you know the Link to sign up for SS benefits?

  • Aug 27, 2017 02:38 PM
    Last: 4mo
    JaredS Wrote: 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.
    Yeah. That makes sense. If you can hold off until 70 and are still earning, 130% sounds like it's worth waiting for, if it's just a few more years.