Yes, no, no.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

My late husband dropped out of school in the 8th grade because he had to help support his mother who was in poor health after his father's death. At 17, he enlisted in the military and obtained his GED while serving and later went on to get a great job. The opportunities my husband had aren't available to today's youth so the best they can hope for without an education is being a laborer somewhere for little beyond minimum wage. This means we've got to do everything possible to educate our children and the fact that Pram's student isn't going to get that education is very disheartening.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Perhaps you should consider broadening your horizons before making absolute statements regarding life's opportunities. For a majority of uneducated people on the lower socioeconomic tier even earning enough to survive until qualifying for SS will be their challenge with a privately funded retirement program far beyond their capability.

*nods in agreement with JVIEHE*

if folks who have the means aren't saving for their retirement, why should i have to be taking care 'o them?

don't buy that plasma tv.
don't have an internets in yer home.
don't buy your son the latest Xbox.
eat pasta and stay away from expensive protiens (no sushi!).
drink olympia beer (its in the water).
start preparing for your retirement in grade school (get all As).
buy your clothes at target, no bannana republic.
don't buy the newest Ipod (you'll live fine without it).
buy a used honda civic, and when you need a second car fer yer family, get another used honda civic.
etc....etc....etc.

i know that thar be the less fortunate, whom fate has delt a cruel hand to, and being the compassionate society that we are, i suppose we ought to take care of them, but everyone else should be ON THEIR OWN.

plannin' for yer retirment is a lifelong task. if you mateys want to be freewheelin' spenders and indulge yersleves, thats yer right, but don't ask the rest 'o us to bail you out.

YARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!


aye

Okay, so it shows the drain starts in 2017, but text elsewhere said 2018, so I thought I'd err in your favor if there was any doubt.

I'm sorry you consider giving you the benefit of the doubt to be 'playing games' - My apologies and I'll try not to do it in the future.


While it certainly could have been worded more compassionately, jviehe had it right on this one - Your student was born to the wrong parent. Some people are lucky enough to be born to parents that encourage education and try to save towards college. Some people are born to parents who essentially sell their older kids into slavery to feed the younger ones. And jviehe was cold but right in his follow-up as well. The kid can still make good, but it'll admittedly be very hard since he's starting out with what probably amounts to at least a 5 yr handicap.

I suppose if you Really didn't want to blame the parent, you could try blaming the politicians. Welfare payments should be conditional upon long-term birth control, but nobody in office has the combination of brains, balls, and honesty to do anything about it.


I do/did most of these things and more, and as a result will probably have the option to retire in my 50s, even assuming our total SS income to be a big fat zero. I've known other people making 20% more than me who will probably have to work well into their 60s or later because they did few if any of the above.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

2017 is the back end of the Reagan Tax Cuts, he cut taxes on the rich and raised Social Security on the middle class to partially offset the huge deficits he created. But the extra social security was going to be saved in US government securities, which it was, and used to offset the increased demand on the system when the boomers retired, which it will.
By now the wealthy should have made so much by investing that money, that the additional income taxes should be no problem, at least that's how Reagan presented it.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Your expert opinion is different than those of the US Department of Treasury and the trustees.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

These are the only kind of authorative sources - Congressional Budget office (CBO) or the SS Trust Fund for this topic.

And, suprise, surprise, I got the 2042 number from the same source and loe and behold, your link states the same number as 2041 - the year, under present projections of revenues and expenses, that Social Security is presently fully funded until.

That's the point I made and that point has been confirmed by all reputable reports upon the topic.

So, now that we two are at least agreed on the core number here, what is it that you would like to discuss about it?

The easiest way to head-off any future funding shortfall would be to double the US immigration intake (doesn't really matter if they are the US-preferred illegal variety or the quite rare 'legal' immigrant variety).

A combination of small and incremental increases in the Social Security payroll tax phased in over the next 10-20 years in combination with a steady stream of immigrants should essentially address this funding shortfall. If the US does nothing about SS, the program will run as it is until 2041, not 2017 as some others like to pretend.

The really serious issue, in my opinion, is Medicare. That is where the USA is looking at a huge funding shortfall in the short to near term horizon. I don't see any simple solution to this problem - the tax increases needed to sustain this program over the next 10-20 years is substantial and unpalatable.

That's not the point I made. You are misrepresenting my statments. That's why I'm not treating your posts seriously. I'll discuss the topic with Si Modo - she does not appear to be playing games here.

I cited data from the Social Security Trustees Report. That point has been confirmed.

You cherry picked a different piece of data and pretended that it was the same data as that I cited. That's what I call playing games.

Universal health care will be the only solution to the Medicare issue. The one study I've examined (Oregon, goes on the ballot in 2008) uses available Medicare federal funding in the mix and shows overall savings of 25% from current Medicare and private insurer plans. The next logical step will be legislative confrontation with big pharma to establish pricing compatible with other nations. The US pays exorbitant markups when compared to other countries for identical prescription products from the same companies serving those same nations. Now that Rummy's out of the picture, perhaps big pharma's arrogance can be brought into reality.

Yes. Look at that. You got the same number as the article in the OP with which you take so much issue, give or take a year. You dismiss the US Treasury as source that is not credible; post a report from 2004; argue that your source is accurate; when in fact, all the reports, regardless of who posted them, predict the same thing.

The point you made is the same point that the article in the OP states, and the same point that subsequent sources supplied in the thread made.

Now that we have agreed? The only one who has been arguing the numbers in the OP has been you. Read the OP - same numbers.

I suggest you inspect the article in the OP and rethink who actually said anything to the contrary.

That could be one solution. Although politically expedient and safe, it is not a wise long-term solution, IMO.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I take back my comment that you weren't playing games here.

I've taken no substantive stance in this thread other than to say that SS is fully funded until 2041/42 and no posted data has contradicted this.

I've not said anything else.

Apparently some people have some issues here...

I'm here only to discuss substantive policy issues. If any serious discussion breaks out in here, I'll be back. Untill then, feel free to play amongst yourselves.

Americano matey -

i have a question, me friend. why cannot pharmaceutical companies feel free to charge different prices for their products, in different countries? i mean, if i own a candybar company, for example, why should i be forced to charge the same amount for that candybar, in every country that i sell that candybar in?

to be open and honest 'bout things, i own me a big chunk of merck stock.
i'm not rich or anything, but i live carefully, spend only what i need to spend, and am hoping that when the time comes, i have a comfortable old age.

from what i have seen, if i become enfeebled in my old age, the only way i can protect myself and my dignity, is with lots and lots and lots of monies.

i want merck to be able to charge lots and lots and lots of monies for its drugs, that is why imma askin' you this question.

-MeadHallPirate (yarrr)

Any company can charge what it desires for its product(s). If the market will absorb those products at their asking price, they generally have a unique or regulated product in high demand or with a competitive market have correctly judged what they can sell it for to achieve acceptable margin and gain market share. If Canada, Mexico and other countries can buy and distribute those same drugs at 25% of American cost, any universal health plan with one live brain cell would require that its pharmacy purchase only from say Canadian suppliers. To achieve that, legislation would be required to break the political barrier of protectionism afforded big pharmo in its distribution contracts. Another of Rummy's legacies at taxpayer cost.

sounds like a reasonable response matey.

still, for reasons 'o self intrest, i hope this is addressed sometime in 2060, when imma dead. i need merck stock to remain robust till then.


*bows*