Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Warren Buffett...."We rich don't pay enough taxes...Darn it!"

The Real Reason Warren Buffett's Taxes are Low


Warren Buffett was in the New York Times  today bragging about his low effective tax rate and saying how he would like to be paying more.   Fellow Forbes contributor Tim Worstall weighed in quibbling about Mr. Buffet not factoring in the corporate taxes on Berkshire Hathaway's earnings.  I'm just a simple CPA, whose firm won't even let him sign audit reports anymore. (That's true of all tax partners here by the way.  I don't take it personally).  I don't want to quibble with a quibble but apparently economists have a hard time figuring out the incidence of the corporate income tax (i.e. who is really paying it), so I think we can let go of that piece of the analysis.

Still Mr. Buffet is not sharing the real reason that he doesn't pay much in the way of income tax relative to his great fortune.  The secret is hidden in plain sight.  Mr. Worstall alludes to it when he mentions that Berkshire Hathaway does not in fact pay dividends.  Mr. Buffet's secret which you can find blasted all over the Internet is one of his famous quotations:
Our favorite holding period is forever
You only pay income taxes at any rate on realized appreciation.  An investment with a holding period of forever incurs a capital gains tax of 0%, while all along the holder can be getting wealthy from appreciation.  That's the real reason Mr. Buffet does not pay a lot of income taxes. (end of article)
  
 Z: This fascinated me because I heard what Mr. Buffet said on Monday about how he only pays 17% in taxes and the rich need to pay more, when most of us know the 'rich' pay the huge bulk of American taxes.
By the way, if Mr. Buffett wants to pay more, what's keeping him from it?

Z

277 comments:

1 – 200 of 277   Newer›   Newest»
beamish said...

It's a crazy mixed up world when 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all because their incomes are low and some billionaire thinks he doesn't pay enough.

Check out this quote from history...

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Michelle Bachmann? Surely those seemingly "conservative" words came out of her wannabe right-wing mouth.

Nope.

That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, bullshitting the American people, as populists are inclined to do.

Elmers Brother said...

You might find this helpful.

Silverfiddle said...

Z: I like your conclusion. Those bleating about taxes being too low can always write extra checks to the US Treasury. Obama and Tiny Tim will be glad to cash them.

Buffett does have a point about uneven taxation. Those who "make money from money," as he phrases it, escape payroll taxes because of how our taxes are structured.

This is why I am for some kind of flat tax (not a VAT!) or even a national sales tax in return for scrapping income tax completely.

Ducky's here said...

Once again, the rich pay a larger portion of the income tax. They pay a much smaller portion of Social Security taxes.

Now the Federal income from those taxes is roughly equal so you're blowing smoke right there.

Then we have the bit about a large percentage paying no income tax. Yeah, students, elderly and unemployed are included in that number.

So keep quoting Rush but be prepared to be made to seem a tad dishonest.

Ducky's here said...

By the way, Buffet is talking about his tax RATE not the absolute number.

He's paying 17% and his office staff are paying 25 - 40%.

Unrealized gain has nothing to do with it. This article is worse than a Breitbart video.

In The Spirit Of Open Dialogue said...

He can afford to preach about that can't he!
He should just go ahead and give part of his Billions to the Govt and get over it.

Ducky's here said...

Yes sir, in the right wing world that's an adequate substitute for a sound tax policy.

Elmers Brother said...

Once again duhkky kills the messenger but provides no source for his conjecture and ad hominems. You keep pushing that stone Sisyphus.

Speedy G said...

Unrealized gain has nothing to do with it.

lol!

mr. ducky obviously isn't a "buy and hold" stock picking strategy advocate.

Speedy G said...

Wise up duckmeister. Get your hands on a few shares of BRK-A and hold onto them for thirty years. It might change your opinion.

Z said...

beamish, do you think any of us are pleased about dependency? geesh

Z said...

Elbro...I hope people like Ducky read that, but they won't. And, when they do, they still don't get it. thanks.

Silverfiddle: there's uneven taxation and most of it's from loopholes...that has to be fixed.

Half of Americans pay zero taxes.

Ducky, if you listen to Rush so much to think we quote from him, no wonder he has a HUGE following. I haven't listened to him more than 10 minutes in a row in my life. And I THINK I've mentioned that about 15 times.

Also, what strikes me funny, and what is your 'stock in trade' is as if that's an insult? Rush is an insult?

RUSH DISAGREES WITH YOU, DUCKY....that doesn't make HIM or ME or SILVERFIDDLE or FJ or BEAMISH of ELBRO, or ANYBODY WRONG.

TRUST me.

Elbro, 'once again' is right....getting kind of hackneyed, isn't it. And then the amusing, smug insistence that only HE is right :-) :-)

Speedy.."wise up" After all THIS time? :)

Ducky's here said...

Wise up duckmeister. Get your hands on a few shares of BRK-A and hold onto them for thirty years. It might change your opinion.

------------

What if you're looking for current income?

I've got a couple of mortgage backed REITs yielding 14%. Someone should benefit from the crisis.

Of course the proceeds are taxed at a higher rate than Buffet.

Ducky's here said...

Half of Americans pay zero taxes.

------

No, they pay no INCOME tax.

They do pay payroll, sales, gas, real estate, excise and other taxes.

Z said...

Ducky, does anybody here think anybody doesn't pay payroll or sales or any other kind of tax?

my point stands

Speedy G said...

Of course the proceeds are taxed at a higher rate than Buffet.

Buy and hold'em is taxed at ZERO so long as you're holding. And if you're smart like Buffet, you "will" them to tax-exempts when you pass. Uncle gets zip.

Speedy G said...

ps - Payroll taxes are income taxes (unless you have people working FOR you).

Z said...

"Payroll taxes are income taxes"

That's a good point; they are taxes taken from our pay/income.

Joe Conservative said...

o/t - Final Destination... one world government controlled through banks by the rich, of course!

I guess when you run out of answers, you kick the responsibility ball one level of government, "up". It's all "hopey" "changey" that way.

Chuck said...

Z, goolge Soros and US taxes. He moved his headquarters to Curacao. Tax-free Curacao to avoid paying taxes (and avoid anyone figuring out where his money really comes from). He attacked Bush for his tax cuts to the wealthy.

Next to Soros, Buffet pays taxes by the bucket full.

And your resident idiot Ducky attacks conservatives for hypocrisy.

Z said...

Joe Conservative...I HADN'T SEEN THAT!
There are almost NO TIMES when I don't miss my Mr. Z, but when I read things like that stuff, I think "Mr Z, you're better off NOT knowing what's happening to your beloved Germany!"

Heck, he was all for the Euro and I fought him on it....2 years after the Euro, he said "Honey, you were right, it's a disaster".
Think about what he'd think about a EUROZONE!? I'm sending this to my stepkids in Munich; tho I hate to ruin THEIR day.
I was a fan of Angela Merkel until her unthinking GREEN stance (she's smarter than that but needs to feed her eco-people)

Chuck....IF THE MEDIA WAS ONLY HONEST AND DISCLOSING INFORMATION LIKE THAT>

beamish said...

beamish, do you think any of us are pleased about dependency? geesh

As a matter of fact, yes I do. Count how many wild-eyed hardcore far left communists (aka the Tea Party) go bonkers when you talk about merely cutting entitlements, or eliminating them altogether.

My point was that we shouldn't be taken in by Comrade Bachmann's rhetoric.

Impertinent said...

"This article is worse than a Breitbart video."

I think we've found your "achilles" heel.

Strap you down ala Clockwork Orange and pipe videos of all our conservative greats until your eyes and ears bleed.

Thersites said...

we shouldn't be taken in by Comrade Bachmann's rhetoric.

...or Imam al-Beamish's Shari'a compliant retirement plan.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said: go bonkers when you talk about merely cutting entitlements, or eliminating them altogether

Well, it seems to me that an income figure could be set so that those with that income and up would not receive Social Security beyond what they have paid in. The figure I have in mind is $75,000.

Medicare is more problematic. Medigap coverage for Mr. AOW = $700 because he hasn't reached the age of 65, at which point the Medigap insurance drops way down. And never kid yourself: without Medigap insurance, one can easily go medically bankrupt.

BTW, Mr. AOW is paying federal income tax on his Social Security Disability income because I make over $24,000/year (I think that figure is right -- I'm not good with numbers). Let me tell you that our combined income is well below the poverty level for our region (Northern Virginia). By the time all the medical expenses are deducted (no mortgage), our combined net income for 2010 was just a few dollars over $10,000. Because, however, I am self-employed, I still have a tax liability in excess of $6,000. Try living on less than $4000 a year!

Always On Watch said...

BTW, that tax liability of $6000 is mostly Social Security tax and Medicare tax -- to the tune of about $5000.

Z said...

AOW, I think paying tax on soc security is absolutely ridiculous.


I also wanted to mention a shocking email I got from my German Stepdaughter in Munich; she mentioned how her business is thriving, etc., but that the $1000 a month FOR HEALTH CARE (you all remember, that 'free health care' the left insists Germans get?) is a big nut to crack every month.

Yes, illegals get it free, but my girl? ARE YOU KIDDING?

Time to start teaching AMericans THE TRUTH, lefties.

beamish said...

we shouldn't be taken in by Comrade Bachmann's rhetoric.

...or Imam al-Beamish's Shari'a compliant retirement plan.

Oh, come on FJ. Surely one of you desk jockeys down at NASA's sock puppet blog creation labs have gotten the PowerPoint on Islamic outreach being NASA's top priority.

I'm sure you'll explain how having no government tax subsidized retirement plan is more "Sharia compliant" than doling out five to six times more in benefits to a retiree that his "paid all his life" amounts to.

But, you could also sit this one out while the productive people are talking.

Pris said...

I believe everyone who receives income, should pay income tax, even if it's a nominal amount. Everyone should have a stake in this country.

beamish, to assume Michele Bachmann is lying is an overreach, especially if you have to use an FDR quote to make your point.

Just because you do not choose Bachmann as a candidate to vote for, there's no reason to use the left's tactics, which is what you're doing.

Where are you getting your talking points? The Daily Kos?

Thersites said...

Excuse me beamish. I never meant to imply that you actually HAD a plan on what to do with retiree's. At least Stalin had a gulag to send all the undesirables away to. You don't even have that.

Perhaps America should just dump them, like you did your last girlfriend. Much like the social security retiree's, she did, after all, pay for everything. ;)

Bd said...

He's also making the point to close such loopholes.

We're all suffering and sacrificing. Why is it so hard for the right to ask the wealthy do the same? They are taxed at a lower rate since the 1950s.

The corporate right sure has the wingnuts fooled when they actually defend the rich! Amazing how you guys can be so wrong yet so unyielding in your shallow beliefs.

beamish said...

Try living on less than $4000 a year

(After deducting medical expenses from taxable income and paying 12.4% / $6000 of your income to Social Security...) The caveats kill your argument.

Hmmm. $6000 is 12.4% of a $48000 annual income...

I understand medical bills are eating up your income, but from where I'm sitting, you're making more than the average American AND getting bennies from the government.

Is your accountant ripping you off?

Elmers Brother said...

You mean there isn't a single Dem that owns a business BD?

Besides if that was the answer why didn't Dems raise taxes when they owned both houses of Congress and the White House?

For the corporate tax rate bromide I suggest the link I left earlier.

Z said...

DAMN it, Bd...I swear...
who the HELL has ever said loopholes don't need to be stopped? We've ALL said that for YEARS.
GAD..read something other than KOS, WOULD YA?

Z said...

By the way....Our "Shallow Beliefs" include getting America back on its feet, NOT leaving a huge deficit to her future's children, demanding good people be self reliant, helping businesses to flourish and not send jobs away from our country, trying to shrink government because that is NO WAY to run a country...I could go on for years.

Nice you consider them SHALLOW.

ptui

Elmers Brother said...

BTW BD, even Obama wants to lower corporate tax rates! Lol

Z said...

Beamish, you say "I understand medical bills are eating up your income, but from where I'm sitting, you're making more than the average American AND getting bennies from the government.

Is your accountant ripping you off?"

No wonder you feel like you do about Soc Sec and Medicare, etc....
...AOW's life is REALITY to MANY .......May you NEVER EVER have medical bills that eat up your savings, your home, and your future.

Z said...

Elbro, you're right "BTW BD, even Obama wants to lower corporate tax rates! Lol"

shivering going on in poor Bd's hero-worshiping, deluded world, huh? :-)

beamish said...

Excuse me beamish. I never meant to imply that you actually HAD a plan on what to do with retiree's. At least Stalin had a gulag to send all the undesirables away to. You don't even have that.

Yes I do. End Social Security and Medicare. Replace them with nothing. Cut off everyone that has gotten back more than they ever paid in (which is the overwhelming majority of people who've been retired for two or more years). Pay back what those that have not drawn Social Security or Medicare at all what they paid in.

Then we seize the assets of everyone that has gotten back more than they paid in, right down to forceably drawing blood from their bodies and removing their skin for burn victims. It's time something useful was harvested from the overwhelming majority of freeloaders among America's retired that worked all their lives to bring down America's economy.

beamish said...

Pris,

Just because you do not choose Bachmann as a candidate to vote for, there's no reason to use the left's tactics, which is what you're doing.

Comrade Bachmann worked for both Jimmy Carter's and Walter Mondale's Presidential campaigns, navigated tax laws to maximize her welfare benefits to run a foster care / boarding house for profit, and has signed a pledge declaring that black people were better off as slaves.

Just like every other refugee from the Democratic Party's KKK wing that formed the "Tea Party movement" in contempt that their socialist party nominated and elected a black man, Comrade Bachmann wouldn't know a conservative if you shoved one in her face.

Z said...

Beamish, she admits she and her husband were Democrats and grew up and got over it.......
it's scum to have supported Carter, no doubt about that, but ....she's gone past that and all you have to do is listen to her and it's apparent.

Ironic that a Gore Vidal book woke her up.

beamish said...

No wonder you feel like you do about Soc Sec and Medicare, etc....

It's the way conservatives felt about entitlement programs back when there were more than five of us.

...AOW's life is REALITY to MANY .......May you NEVER EVER have medical bills that eat up your savings, your home, and your future.

AOW's life is reality to many, but on the whole, not that many.

May you never live in a country filled with leftists who think they're conservative.

Z said...

Beamish "AOW's life is reality to many, but on the whole, not that many."

I thought that's what you thought.....you're dead wrong.

"May you never live in a country filled with leftists who think they're conservative."

Ya, that'll be the day...getting a leftist to think that :-)

beamish said...

Beamish, she admits she and her husband were Democrats and grew up and got over it.......
it's scum to have supported Carter, no doubt about that, but ....she's gone past that and all you have to do is listen to her and it's apparent.


Sorry. My family was assaulted and terrorized by DemoKKKrats for registering black people to vote not even 10 years before Comrade Bachmann worked for Jimmy Carter's campaign. She knew what she was getting into. People who support Democrats fall into 2 categories - blithering imbeciles and people dedicated to that party's founding Antifederalist principles of destroying the US Constitution with the highest American body count possible.

That she has one of those two categories in her background makes me want to keep her away from sharp objects, much less the Presidency.

Ironic that a Gore Vidal book woke her up.

Opportunism. So she reads Vidal dissin' the Founding Fathers from Aaron Burr's point of view and it totally transformed her from shilling for Jimmy Carter and all the free welfare grip to be had from filing taxes as a boarding house instead of a home and became the staunch champion of conservatism... that wants to "expand the tax base."

Yeah, I'll pass. When Santorum drops out, there will be no conservatives running for the GOP nomination.

Z said...

Beamish....I won't argue with you anymore; what's the point?
Right, everybody who EVER did anything YOU don't approve of was wrong then and still wrong now!! :-)

As for Santorum; he's my pick now, too, though he won't beat Obama. NO WAY.

Give us what you think he could say or do that could get him the nomination let alone beat THE ONE.

beamish said...

"AOW's life is reality to many, but on the whole, not that many."

I thought that's what you thought.....you're dead wrong.

You're not going to come up with a figure, number, or percentage to show how the disabled comprise the bulk of Social Security recipients any faster that the Democrats that never can when they push that myth. AOW's circumstances aren't the norm, otherwise no one would be sold on living off entitlements in the first place.

Thersites said...

End Social Security and Medicare. Replace them with nothing. Cut off everyone that has gotten back more than they ever paid in (which is the overwhelming majority of people who've been retired for two or more years). Pay back what those that have not drawn Social Security or Medicare at all what they paid in.

Pay 'em back? With WHAT, beamish? The blood you're going to suck out of those 14 centenarians that over-collected? That's going to be some pretty expensive blood.

Let's calculate what's needed... SSA took in over $800b in 2008. There's is currently $2.5t in the "trust fund"... that'll pay back about 3 years worth of receipts. Of course, the 51 million Americans who depend on their checks every month, 'F em, but where are you going to get the other $20t+ that you owe the rest of us that have been paying in for the past 30+ years and have yet to receive a penny?

I mean, you do have a plan, don't you, beamish? Foreclose on maxed out SS retiree's homes? Drag 'em all out of nursing homes, turn off and sell their respirators and excess meds from their medicine cabinets?

I know 51 million votes you won't be getting. And I suspect that their are another 150 million that will back THEM up, not you.

There's ideology, and then there's cycnicism. You beamish, have crossed the threshold.

Z said...

I'm not talking specifically about AOW and MR Aow's types of problems, Beamish

Z said...

FJ, well said "I mean, you do have a plan, don't you, beamish? Foreclose on maxed out SS retiree's homes? Drag 'em all out of nursing homes, turn off and sell their respirators and excess meds from their medicine cabinets?"

I fear his answer will be "yup"

Thersites said...

Personally, I think the slaves got a better deal from the government when they were freed by the Republicans in '65. At least the Freedmen's Bureau would FEED and HOUSE the destitute. SSA may have been un-Constitutional, it may not have been perfect. But at least it wasn't cynically "heartless".

Thersites said...

btw - Where you going to get the public housing and Medicaid funds you're going to need to pay welfare benefits to the 51 million American you just kicked of Social Security?

Maybe you can house them in all those homes you just foreclosed on.

beamish said...

Beamish....I won't argue with you anymore; what's the point?
Right, everybody who EVER did anything YOU don't approve of was wrong then and still wrong now!! :-)


It's not that simple. You don't walk away from desiring the destruction of the US Constitution and having an insatiable bloodlust for American deaths that only massive numbers of taxpayer subsidized abortions can dampen (i.e. support Democrats) and decide "hey, I'm a conservative now."

Comrade Bachmann reeks of populist opportunism. Inauthentic to the core. She probably can't even spell "conservative."

As for Santorum; he's my pick now, too, though he won't beat Obama. NO WAY.

Give us what you think he could say or do that could get him the nomination let alone beat THE ONE.


"when I am President, the AFL-CIO will be named and pursued as a domestic terrorist organization."

Thersites said...

Somehow I've a feeling that Social Security benefits are less generous than welfare, but I could be wrong. Of course, we could convince the 51 million to all commit crimes, and then get locked up w/3 squares & free medical at State expense, PLUS private security... Woo-Hoo!

It'll sure create lots of prison resort/retirement villa construction jobs!

Thersites said...

Maybe beamish's "New Disciplinary Society" will FINALLY be the utopia that REAL Conservatives always dreamed of...

beakerkin said...

Beamish in 2012

I am still voting for Mr B

beamish said...

Let's calculate what's needed... SSA took in over $800b in 2008. There's is currently $2.5t in the "trust fund"... that'll pay back about 3 years worth of receipts. Of course, the 51 million Americans who depend on their checks every month, 'F em, but where are you going to get the other $20t+ that you owe the rest of us that have been paying in for the past 30+ years and have yet to receive a penny?

From other budget cuts, of course. Get rid of other useless and unconstitutional parasites on the US economy, like the Department of Education and NASA.

beamish said...

I mean, you do have a plan, don't you, beamish? Foreclose on maxed out SS retiree's homes? Drag 'em all out of nursing homes, turn off and sell their respirators and excess meds from their medicine cabinets?

Nothing that merciful. Those deadbeats need to pay for wrecking America's economy. I'm talking forceable organ harvesting. Anyone need a kidney?

Pris said...

Well beamish, since you want to end all "handouts" as you put it, let's end unemployment payments shall we? Let all those nee'r do wells sleep in the streets. Funny how you don't mention that!

Oh, and let's end those SSI payments too, ok? What do you want to do with the disabled, kill them?

Or is it just seniors you hate, oh, and former Democrats, and really, when you get right down it, anyone who disagrees with you is just no damn good, right?

One other thing, maybe we should just leave abandoned children in Govt. institutions instead of with responsible, caring people who are willing to provide care for them.

Of course according to you, they shouldn't get a stipend, they should go broke paying for them out of their pocket, even though they have children of their own.

You have no idea how troubled many of these children are. I admire anyone who opts to take that on.

I know a couple who has done that, and it's a difficult task, but they felt they were helping, and they were. Most of the children responded so well it was heartwarming.

Did the couple get a stipend? You bet. It costs money to care for children, and it was so worth it.

Or would you prefer a government orphanage? The money is still spent, but it's for regimenting children, and impersonal. But, by now, I know you just don't care.

Thersites said...

From other budget cuts, of course. Get rid of other useless and unconstitutional parasites on the US economy, like the Department of Education and NASA.

lol! There's $85b. That ought to cover about 1/10th of the interest on the $20t you'll owe in year 1. But how are you going to pay off the principal? Do you even have the slightest clue as to how much money used to come from Social Security? Because I don't think you do. You'll have to pay out every penny you currently collect in income taxes for the next thirty years.

Thersites said...

That's not a plan, beamish. That's a suicide pact.

beamish said...

Where you going to get the public housing and Medicaid funds you're going to need to pay welfare benefits to the 51 million American you just kicked of Social Security?

There will be no public housing, Medicaid or welfare benefits for those who have been retired for over two years and have been the driving force behind the destruction of the US economy like the commies they are.

They're just going to have to get a job or give one to an undertaker. I absolutely refuse to acknowledge their humanity anymore than the amount they acknowledged mine the day they decided my then unborn generation should pay for their excesses.

Death to the parasites!

Thersites said...

Death to the parasites!

Veterans especially, eh beamish? And current federal and state government retiree's!

Thersites said...

I mean, none of them ever did anything "productive".

Thersites said...

You go to war, you takes your chances along with everyone else...

Thersites said...

Those death benefits they pay soldiers killed in action? Screw 'em. Just send their kids a folded flag and dump the bodies in a shell crater somewhere near the front lines. Why pay for a plane to return a useless corpse to Dover and Arlington.

Thersites said...

There will be no defense budget, transportation budget, social services budget, commerce budget, treasury budget, State department budget, etc. There will JUST be the Social Security debt payoff budget.

Thersites said...

THAT's your plan, beamish.

Z said...

Beak, read ALL the comments.....

Thersites...I'm learning a LOT from you.

Pris, actually, I do believe in faith-run orphanages over foster card.

Beamish.."death to the parasites" sounds like that video I've seen of Obama cronies saying they may have to kill a million Americans who aren't playing ball with their agenda.

Thersites said...

Social Security recipients didn't "wreck America's economy", beamish. Most recipients today participate AT A LOSS. Yet you would punish THEM.

So let's blame the Tea Party for the current $15t national debt and foreclose on them! That's about as much sense as you're making.

beamish said...

Well beamish, since you want to end all "handouts" as you put it, let's end unemployment payments shall we? Let all those nee'r do wells sleep in the streets. Funny how you don't mention that!

What's to mention? If your state only pays out a portion of what you paid into it's unemployment insurance program, you're not taking anything out you didn't pay for, unlike the deadbeats on Social Security who've been retired for more than two years. Unlike Social Security retirement parasitism, unemployment benefits aren't for life.

Oh, and let's end those SSI payments too, ok? What do you want to do with the disabled, kill them?
Depends. Disabled from what? I know people who get SSI because they've drank their liver away. Heck, I know someone who gets SSI for having "attention deficit disorder." I kid you not. If they are not completely physically disabled and unable to work, see what running and acetylene torch over their faces can contribute to burn treatment and research. I bet it would cure ADD.

Or is it just seniors you hate, oh, and former Democrats, and really, when you get right down it, anyone who disagrees with you is just no damn good, right?

There really aren't any reasons to believe anyone who has supported any Democrat after 1950 is not fundamentally dedicated to the destruction of the US Constitution and bringing about the deaths of as many American citizens as possible. Al Qaeda's hatred pales in comparison with the contempt the average Democrat has for America. So, no. Comrade Bachmann's ties to the Democratic Party are a non-starter for me, besides the fact that she's a communist.

One other thing, maybe we should just leave abandoned children in Govt. institutions instead of with responsible, caring people who are willing to provide care for them.

But what will vultures and mice eat? I can't believe you'd suggest starving defenseless animals.

Of course according to you, they shouldn't get a stipend, they should go broke paying for them out of their pocket, even though they have children of their own.

Because conservatism is all about exchanging personal responsibility for government largesse. You Tea Party commies crack me up.

You have no idea how troubled many of these children are. I admire anyone who opts to take that on.

I admire anyone who takes that on at their own expense rather than mine and every other taxpayer.

beamish said...

No FJ, I wouldn't target veterans benefits. I'd shut down bottom feeding parasitic programs, like the FAA's sleep-at-work program, and NASA's do-coke-at-work-between-creating-sock-puppet-blogs program. The overwhelming majority of retired people have already gotten back more than they paid in. It's part of the reason we've been hearing about the coming default and growing debt for 40+ years. The previous generation and your generation didn't want to do anything about it, so gtfo of the way and see why humans are so good at domesticating animals and eliminating pests. Y'alls put up or shut up time has passed.

beamish said...

Social Security recipients didn't "wreck America's economy", beamish. Most recipients today participate AT A LOSS.

False. Most Social Security recipients have taken more than they ever paid in by the second year of their retirement, and sooner if they develop a $1500 a month Medicare prescription drug habit. The "I paid in all my life" argument is utter bullshit. You may have paid in, but you didn't pay in enough to cover what you draw out.

Yet you would punish THEM.

That's too tame. I would much rather torture them for wrecking America's economy. I'm not entirely without mercy though. They're more than welcome to pay for anaesthesia when we come for one of their lungs.

So let's blame the Tea Party for the current $15t national debt and foreclose on them! That's about as much sense as you're making.

If you're not part of the solution, you ARE the problem. The wild-eyed raving mad communists that call themselves the "Tea Party" don't want to do a damned thing about the economy except raise taxes on "the rich," cut defense spending, and keep their entitlement gravy flowing.

I think I've already mentioned that it's impossible to drop napalm on a Tea Party gathering and burn a conservative, because there aren't any there.

Pris said...

"Pris, actually, I do believe in faith-run orphanages over foster card."

So do I Z, but perhaps there aren't enough of them, I don't know. We contribute every year to Father Flanagans.

For all we know, the Bachmann's was religion based. I only know that there are children on the streets who don't have a chance.

Ending up in juvenile detention facilities is not the answer for abandoned children.

Bd said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pris said...

"If you're not part of the solution, you ARE the problem. The wild-eyed raving mad communists that call themselves the "Tea Party" don't want to do a damned thing about the economy except raise taxes on "the rich," cut defense spending, and keep their entitlement gravy flowing."

This is an out and out lie!

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
net observer said...

I never understood why a national sales tax was so controversial. Wouldn't that take care of all this? More or less? Rich, poor? Old, young? Race, gender? Legal, illegal?

We all pay taxes when we pay for gas. Seems to work out okay for the most part.

beamish said...

Pris,

Aside from the tired old "leaderless resistance" model perfected by the KKK wing of the Democratic Party before they went apeshit and created the "Tea Party" movement, what else can you say about poll after poll that has Teabaggers claiming they want more taxes on the rich and screaming bloody murder that Obama cut $500 Billion out of Medicare. "that was some other Tea Party" isn't a defense, it's a copout.

The Tea Party, to a man all hardcore communists, don't want any cuts to entitlements whatsoever.

They want defense cuts, which is why they first latched on to the far left fruitcake Ron Paul. They want corporate welfare, which is why they latched on to serial bankruptcy filer and limousine lefty Donald Trump. Then they moved on to Michelle Bachmann after they found out she worked hard to get Jimmy Carter elected, and made a killing on welfare exploiting foster care laws.

There is absolutely nothing zip nada conservative about the Tea Party. There never was.

beamish said...

beamish, you are a certifiable liar and moron.

I've been hearing that alot, Bd. Especially from your fellow leftists in the Tea Party movement. I do so wish you international socialists and national socialists would play nice with each other back in your Democratic Party home.

There's actually people on this planet that think Scott Brown in blue state Massachussetts getting elected to the Senate was a "conservative" victory, and that's you socialists muddying up the discourse since Hillary Clinton declared herself "conservative" when she was running against Obama.

I'd appreciate it if you leftists would keep your stray dogs off my lawn. It's bad enough they're throwing gay rights circuit parties at CPAC now. What's next, remixes of the Horst Wessel Lied?

Rest assured, Bd. You are still just as much my leftist enemy as you national socialist siblings in the Tea Party. Frankly, I don't care what kind of lefty you are. You give up claim to conservatism the moment you want government to redistribute wealth to feed your welfare parasitism.

Z said...

net, I haven't studied that much, but that means things would be taxed more which we BOUGHT, right? But no income tax? But, payroll tax, obviously...?

Is part of that criticism that people might not buy as much because of it? ??

Bd...nobody comes here and calls my commenters names......and, no offense, but your calling someone a moron is the height of irony.

MK said...

"By the way, if Mr. Buffett wants to pay more, what's keeping him from it?"

Indeed.

I know out here in Australia, if i were to overstate my income on my tax return, there is no tax-swat team on standby ready to kick my door in shouting - you paying too much tax boy, on your knees, hands behind your head, boy!

Z said...

Hi, MK....THAT is funny! I'm sure that's true :-)

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I don't have the figures in front of me right now. The total income figure you mentioned is pretty close, I think.

I hope you are not implying that I was lying in the comments I made earlier. I did not lie.

A few more details....

What's eating up the budget in this household: health insurance premiums of $1000/month (as well as medical expenses) and the SE tax, the latter on net receipts from my teaching business. Medical expenses for 2010 were in the $20,000 range. Other deductions from our income are real-estate taxes, somewhere in the range of $10,000. I also have to pay local business tax, landlord tax, car tax (personal property tax) and Lord only knows what else. Once all those deductions came into play, our net income for 2010 was just over $10,000 -- before income taxes.

My situation may not be the norm. However, there are many couples with one disabled partner and going through this kind of household budget mess.

My accountant isn't ripping me off, BTW. He does the tax return as he finds every single loophole; but I am the daughter of an IRS auditor and proof the return very carefully. I was gobsmacked when I learned that a portion of Mr. AOW's disability check from Social Security was taxable.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
You're talking along the lines of "greedy old geezers."

Now, maybe that applies if geezers have a huge retirement income. But those of us who didn't work for the government (local, state, federal) or are not CEO's or the like don't get that kind of huge retirement.

BTW, Medicare doesn't pay for longterm care in a nursing home. Medicaid does, however. In Virginia, to qualify for Medicaid, one is allowed to keep only $2000 in liquid and real assets -- and that applies to the other member of the couple as well.

Now, I do realize that many on Social Security disability are not disabled at all. Look at all the drug dealers riding around on government-paid scooters in downtown DC and raking in a big monthly income that is never reported or taxed. Not to mention all the individuals on partial disability: ADD and other disorders put some on Social Security's rolls at a very young age.

Thersites said...

False. Most Social Security recipients have taken more than they ever paid in by the second year of their retirement, and sooner if they develop a $1500 a month Medicare prescription drug habit. The "I paid in all my life" argument is utter bullshit. You may have paid in, but you didn't pay in enough to cover what you draw out.

I've proved the argument 3x with sourced actual numbers. That you can't do simple math is no longer my problem. You need to sue your second grade math teacher.

It's one thing to be be stubborn. It's another to be an ass. You're an ass, beamish.

Thersites said...

...if they develop a $1500 a month Medicare prescription drug habit. The "I paid in all my life" argument is utter bullshit.

Note for those who weren't paying attention.

Changing the argument from Social Security retirement to Medicare benefits/premiums is a tacit admission that Beamish is and always was full of sh*t with his original argument.

Thersites said...

...and the Tea Party is at the FRONT LINES in tackling BOTH Obamacare AND the need to make chages to the Medicare program, the Ryan budget proposal being PROOF positive that this is the case.

-FJ said...

...but then the "communists" of the Tea party are actually DOING something to restore the Constitution. Unlike beamish, who "bravely" takes-on those who aren't ideologically "pure" enough for his own personal brand of "conservatism" (aka - cynicism).

-FJ said...

...and beamish sides with those who would subvert the original intent of the Constitution against the Tea Party Patriots.

Beamish is like the Iroqois siding with George III during the Revolution. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Nothing like a nice, clean stab in the back, eh beamish!

Joe Conservative said...

Here's a debt reduction idea for you beamish. Sell her to the Chinese for scrap copper.

beamish said...

I've proved the argument 3x with sourced actual numbers. That you can't do simple math is no longer my problem. You need to sue your second grade math teacher.

You went from trying to claim an employer's matching contribution was contributed by the employee to accusing me of trying to bring about Sharia law to trying to identify my views with some French asshole to accusing me of wanting to cut veteran's benefits.

Very far out of the reach of your impressive pantomime of a mindless twit is your addressing, much less countering my actual argument. Math indeed is your friend. That there is no interest accrued or inflation adjusted for on that buck fifty a week you put into Social Security and Medicare back in 1976 certainly adds up to the fact that no, you didn't pay in all your life for the SS and Medicare benefits you'll receive.

It's one thing to be be stubborn. It's another to be an ass. You're an ass, beamish.

Is that supposed to mean something, commie?

beamish said...

Changing the argument from Social Security retirement to Medicare benefits/premiums is a tacit admission that Beamish is and always was full of sh*t with his original argument.

Ignoring the fact that I've included Medicare in my argument all along isn't going to refute me either. But spot on impersonation of a leftist's genuine lack of reading comprehension skills there, comrade.

Thersites said...

You went from trying to claim an employer's matching contribution was contributed by the employee

You've never owned your own business, beamish. So don't hold YOUR inexperience against me.

to accusing me of trying to bring about Sharia law to trying to identify my views with some French asshole to accusing me of wanting to cut veteran's benefits.

I accuse you of advocating Shari'a Law because you neglect to address 30+ years of interest your plan doesn't accrue on Social Security payment mades.

And ps - Veterans benefits ARE outrageous! My father retired from the USAF at age 42 and IMMEDIATELY began collecting retirement. He never worked a lick after... plus he got FULL medical.

Is that supposed to mean something, commie?

It means that you, beamish, are an ass.

Ignoring the fact that I've included Medicare in my argument all along isn't going to refute me either.

Funny, you never included it in the numbers you cited. Why's that?

-FJ said...

Evidently your 2nd grade math teacher isn't the only public servant you need to sue. NOT understanding numbers may be the least of your problems.

beamish said...

...and beamish sides with those who would subvert the original intent of the Constitution against the Tea Party Patriots.

Condemning future generations to debt as a matter of course and principle is the original intent of the Constitution? Who knew?

Beamish is like the Iroqois siding with George III during the Revolution. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Soviets used to bungle their espionage ops with insertion agents not properly versed in local customs or cultural references. This leads to embarrassing moments, like when one of their agents confuses a serial killer for a movie star, or wants to sing happy birthday on the anniversary of a rock and roll icon's death. Things like this would blow the Soviet agent's cover, and thus prevent them access to sensitive intel.

Michelle Bachmann's training as a Soviet agent was likely stopped by the Reagan administration, but surely in the meantime she would have studied her target more closely. In order to sway conservatives, Comrade Bachmann and her fellow communist infiltrators in the Tea Politburo must convince conservatives they are them. Throwing gay pride celebrations at CPAC is another example of how out of touch the Tea Party is with conservatism.

They're failing miserably.

Nothing like a nice, clean stab in the back, eh beamish!

Nah. I prefer to kick leftists in the teeth.

Thersites said...

Ah, you reserve the stab in the back for your friends. Nice.

Thersites said...

...oooops. Better make that former friends.

beamish said...

You went from trying to claim an employer's matching contribution was contributed by the employee

You've never owned your own business, beamish. So don't hold YOUR inexperience against me.

Reality's pretty static, last I checked. I've already addressed that the self-employed that would pay double are a pretty small number. Currently less than 12% of working Americans.

to accusing me of trying to bring about Sharia law to trying to identify my views with some French asshole to accusing me of wanting to cut veteran's benefits.

I accuse you of advocating Shari'a Law because you neglect to address 30+ years of interest your plan doesn't accrue on Social Security payment mades.

I don't have to, because I'm not about hedging the bad investment. Regardless, Social Security itself doesn't accrue interest or adjust for inflation, just a standard "cost of living allowance" adjustment to insure everyone gets back more than they actually paid in, which on average occurs in the second year od retirement.

And ps - Veterans benefits ARE outrageous! My father retired from the USAF at age 42 and IMMEDIATELY began collecting retirement. He never worked a lick after... plus he got FULL medical.

As he should have. Military spending has given America the internet, jet travel, GPS, cell phones, Velcro, and Silly Putty, not to mention thousands of jobs spinning off from those industries.

Entitlement spending has given us unsustainable debts.

If we're going to pick winners and losers, why not support the ones that actually grow the economy?

Ignoring the fact that I've included Medicare in my argument all along isn't going to refute me either.

Funny, you never included it in the numbers you cited. Why's that?

Didn't have to. Stating "Drawing Medicare benefits makes it worse" after demonstrating that Social Security alone turns retirees into deadbeats within 3 to 6 years of their retirement was sufficient. Retirees eat up what they actually paid in and much more with Social Security alone. Medicare makes this consumption faster. That's been my argument all along.

The "I paid all my life for my government retirement bennies" argument is utter bullshit for the overwhelming majority of retirees.

Sure, they're minor exceptions here and there. You can caveat 'til the cows come home. But most, the overwhelming majority of retirees, didn't pay in jack compared to what they'll get back in both Social Security and Medicare. The system is going broke BECAUSE OF THEM.

beamish said...

If money paid into Social Security and Medicare drew interest and adjusted for inflation (not to mention sat in a lockbox waiting for you) there would be no talk of debts defaulting and the need to tax more to pay benefits.

The very fact that it takes 4 workers paying into Social Security right now to support one retired freeloader is proof enough that no, grandpa, you didn't pay all your life to get those bennies.

Thersites said...

Even you don't believe your original argument anymore beamish. But please, keep babbling. Show everyone how you're even beginning to sound like an ass...

beamish said...

...oooops. Better make that former friends.

Does this mean I can't talk you into making an Ida May Fuller sock puppet to slap around?

Thersites said...

Ida May Fuller isn't your enemy, beamish. Perhaps you can tell us how YOU would have behaved differently, given the same inducement.

beamish said...

Even you don't believe your original argument anymore beamish. But please, keep babbling. Show everyone how you're even beginning to sound like an ass...

I'll never top the hee-hawing of you braying "Tea Party" Democrats.

"Da Constie-tooshin sez we should have unlimiterated retirement benefits paid fer by people who'ns ain't even alive yet!"

You lefties crack me up.

Thersites said...

..but reforming the system isn't good enough for you. And paying back all those who've contributed for their ENTIRE lives is out of the question.

So here we are. Attack the do'ers. Revel in your own "vestal virginal " conservate purity.

beamish said...

Ida May Fuller isn't your enemy, beamish.

No, she's the prototype of the modern and average Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid beneficiary, getting back hela more than ever paid in.

The kind of person that will insubstantially say "I paid in all my life" with a straight face, and then changes their argument for robbing their fellow Americans blind from one of an undue sense of entitlement to a psuedo-moral plea of how it's somehow cruel to not let them rob you after you shove the numbers under their nose and call their bullshit.

Thersites said...

blah...blah...BLAH.

I'll never collect the excess money I've contributed to Social Security. Add "interest" to my contributions, and I'd already be retired.

So don't pretend to lecture ME about how much YOU are being screwed. Especially when you aren't prepared to actually exercise wisdom and instead merely invoke cries for "justice".

beamish said...

..but reforming the system isn't good enough for you.

Pssst. It's a Ponzi scheme. It can't be reformed.

And paying back all those who've contributed for their ENTIRE lives is out of the question.

Yeah. Bernie Madoff went to prison for less than Social Security recipients do to the American economy every year.

Thersites said...

Justice will be whatever I say it is, as I actually seek to ACHIEVE the political power necessary to make a difference.

You'll always be on your knees praying for it.

Peter Reilly said...

I appreciate the comments. Some of you may want to log onto Forbes and leave comments at the original source

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2011/08/15/the-real-reason-warren-buffetts-taxes-are-low/

-FJ said...

Pascal, "Pensees"

The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."

-FJ said...

You need to start looking FORWARD beamish. Else the whirlpool will suck you in, and you will drown.

beamish said...

I'll never collect the excess money I've contributed to Social Security. Add "interest" to my contributions, and I'd already be retired.

Heck, you and everybody else. I'm all for a private, VOLUNTARY system.

So don't pretend to lecture ME about how much YOU are being screwed. Especially when you aren't prepared to actually exercise wisdom and instead merely invoke cries for "justice".

Wisdom? This "running out of time moment" has been coming for at least 40 years. I've been hearing about it all my life. I remember when Social Security wasn't supposed to go insolvent until 2060. Now that's gonna happen in the next ten years. Medicare will run out of funds for hospital care in the next 5 years.

Were you all just going to wait for the bomb to go off in your faces? It's been drilled into me, all my life, by your fellow leftist public schools and your fellow leftist media that Social Security and Medicare aren't going to be there for me anyway. The picture is bleak in 2035 when I can retire, if living that long isn't against the law by then. Even under the Ryan "plan," (which by the way doesn't account for inflation, unforeseen wars and natural disasters, and doesn't make Social Security and Medicare privatized and voluntary) there's an effort to perpetuate the current entitlement Ponzi schemes by renaming their mandatory participation requirements.

Dialectical materialism does not work. A turd will never be a candy bar.

Wisdom? I wasn't asking for advice. I was pushing you off a cliff in your wheelchair and laughing about it.

Don't worry. For God so loved the world, that he sent Uncle Sam to bail you out.

Joe Conservative said...

Were you all just going to wait for the bomb to go off in your faces?.

lol! How old are YOU beamish, and where have YOU been for the past 20 years.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And your plan for the future?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

BOOM!

Way to go!

beamish said...

You need to start looking FORWARD beamish. Else the whirlpool will suck you in, and you will drown.

Surely I'm not the first to suggest shutting down power to the "third rail of American politics" so we can tear that sumbitch up and melt it down into commemorative keychains of the day America threw off leftism.

Of course, we can't make it to that dystopian post-apocalyptic nightmare world of action heroes bringing back the good ol' days of 'Mericuh Hollywood fantasizes about if we don't screw shit up all right and proper first.

Viva the default!

Thersites said...

If advancing the clock on the bomb's timer is the only plan that YOU can come up to save your own ass, have at it. But don't expect US to kiss YOUR ass while you do it.

Rationalize it anyway you want to, beamish. But please, stop calling yourself an American and/or a Christian. You're neither.

Thersites said...

ps - You and George Soros make a great pair. Both would betray their own people to a certain death.

beamish said...

Were you all just going to wait for the bomb to go off in your faces?

lol! How old are YOU beamish, and where have YOU been for the past 20 years.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


I'll be 41 this weekend. I've been trying to wake you for over 20 years.

Let me guess. You need to see my birth certificate?

Z said...

AOW "Medicaid does, however. In Virginia, to qualify for Medicaid, one is allowed to keep only $2000 in liquid and real assets -- and that applies to the other member of the couple as well."

WHat about the really indigent or illegals with no money? All paid for by the gov't?

beamish said...

ps - You and George Soros make a great pair. Both would betray their own people to a certain death.

Ah yes, the "conservative" virtue of believing that one faces certain death without his ration from the ever-growing government.

Is this alternate universe I've falen into for real? The gay thing at CPAC was fishy, but rallying to defend the welfare state against all enemies Republican and Mexican?

WTF happened to conservatism in America?

Thersites said...

I've been trying to wake you for over 20 years.

By putting a pillow over grandma's face. How sweet of you!

We don't need an alarm clock, beamish. And we don't need a parricide, either.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said: the overwhelming majority of retirees, didn't pay in jack compared to what they'll get back in both Social Security and Medicare. The system is going broke BECAUSE OF THEM.

I say: True!

But it's not only the Social Security and Medicare funds in the red. So are the local and state pension funds, to which the contributions on the part of the employees have been nil or very nearly nil.


From 1973-1974, Mr. AOW worked for the state of Virginia one year and had to pay into a pension fund; we got that money back, of course. By 1985, however, state employees in Virginia didn't contribute one single dime to their pension funds; the state picked up the tab. Typically, these state employees retired at a young age; clearly, whatever was paid in was long exhausted before these pensioners went the way of all flesh.

Thersites said...

You, Tantalus, Ixion and Sisyphus will all make a fine grouping on the shores of the Styx for lost souls to pity.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
WHat about the really indigent or illegals with no money? All paid for by the gov't?

For the most part, yes. Those in longterm care facilities are often in facilities in which you'd never confine your worst enemy: filthy (both facility and the patients' diapers and bedding), starvation diets, etc. I could go on and on. And I do know about this personally as my distant cousin (widowed and childless, with no siblings and none of the other relatives knowing what was going on) was placed in such a facility in Washington, D.C. -- rescued in a few short weeks when her neighbors and their attorney came forward to place her in another facility, which my cousin could well afford and indeed did so until she passed away a few months later.

Always On Watch said...

Thanks to her two daughters' thievery, my mother-in-law is a pauper in California. Catatonic and in the final stage of Alzheimer's, she is in a very small facility, 1/2 of the fee paid for by her husband's Social Security and the other half by her long-time boyfriend.

Without Social Security, where would she be? On the street to die in her dirty diaper? Oh, sure, maybe her boyfriend would pick up the rest of the tab -- if he could afford to do so, I'm not sure. Mr. AOW and I can't pick up the tab. Mr. AOW's sisters clearly will not, and the courts WILL NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE for stealing from an demented old woman Mr. AOW's only brother is disabled now: heart condition. Grandchildren? Two drug addicts, one age 12, another just starting college -- no help for my mother-in-law there. The VA is supposed to be helping my mother-in-law financially, but hasn't produced one thin dime yet.

How many people are there like my mother-in-law? More than most of us know, I think. Totally destitute and still breathing, albeit helpless.

Before Social Security came along, who took care of people like my mother-in-law?

beamish said...

I've been trying to wake you for over 20 years.

By putting a pillow over grandma's face. How sweet of you!

We don't need an alarm clock, beamish. And we don't need a parricide, either.


I think that will take care of itself. Perhaps the retired who fear that without their bennies they'll wind up eating dog food and dying cold and lonely and desperate without friends, neighbors, and relatives to care for them will try not to be such assholes to be around.

Sure, there'll be some parricide via neglect and malice. But I don't it'll be any more prevalent than it already is.

Even after being overtaxed, the American people give to charities and philanthropic organizations in amounts greater than most nation's entire GDP. Imagine how much they could give if they were even less taxed?

We need to stop playing this half-measure game of negotiating with cancer how many cells it can corrupt rather than removing the cancer, or, bleeeh, lusting for that cancer as the commies that formed the Tea Party do.

We don't need entitlement reform. We need entitlement extinction.

Thersites said...

...and AoW, State worker pensions and Social Security are separate issues.

As a former Bethlehem Steel employee myself, the fact that those workers receive NOTHING in company medical pensions and benefits does not speak volumes in favour of private pension systems.

Pension reform is needed ACROSS the board. The PBGC will never be in a position to adequately deal with the structural problems inherent in the current system.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said: WTF happened to conservatism in America?

I say: FDR struck the death blow as far as what we're discussing here goes.

As I've said already, Social Security and Medicare are in dire need of reform. But eliminating them? Won't happen unless the law makes the children and grandchildren legally and financially responsible for the care of their elders. Catch 22 applies to that as well.

Always On Watch said...

Thersites,
State worker pensions and Social Security are separate issues

My point: burden on the taxpayer at whichever level. Ultimately, somebody has to pay for those pensions if the employees haven't self-funded.

The masses of retiring and disabled Baby Boomers are about to overrun "the system." Thinking about that used to be theoretical; we're past the theoretical stage now, and a crisis is upon us.

Again, I recommend Never Say Die by Susan Jacoby. Forget her political orientation when reading the book. Look at those facts she's presenting and not her editorials!

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Friends, neighbors, and relatives disappear even when the old one isn't an asshole. Nobody wants to be around someone who goes on a two-hour outing to the VFW and comes home wet! Hell, I can't even get somebody to stop by and empty Mr. AOW's potty so that I can take an overnight vacation. I don't know what I'm going to do when the time comes for me to fly to California to attend my mother-in-law's funeral. Put Mr. AOW in a nursing home for a few days at $300+ a day??? That's what has been recommended to me by the medical profession. Health insurance or Medicare won't pick up that tab, that's for sure.

I'm coming up on two years of caregiving. I'm not yet 60 years old, and I'm weary, weary, weary.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said: Even after being overtaxed, the American people give to charities and philanthropic organizations in amounts greater than most nation's entire GDP. Imagine how much they could give if they were even less taxed?

I ask: Do any of these people and/or organizations provide respite care as I described in my previous comment?

Thersites said...

Before Social Security came along, who took care of people like my mother-in-law?

It's the Tragedy of American Compassion, AoW.

What was once a private, all-volunteer effort has become a "state run" warehousing operation. We can lament the road that got us here. But the road we were on wasn't "all that great" to begin with.

Volunteerism no longer brings honour upon those who practice it. THAT has been replaced with the calumny of the beamishes and duckies.

In Franklin's day, eight hours were given to one's own business, and then eight hours were given in the performance of the "people's business". Today, we're lucky to get the first eight hours from people. And if you don't pay them sufficiently (in their own eyes) for it, they'll get all in a huff about their "rights" being violated.

Thersites said...

Mr duckies crew advocate paying the younger generation to "volunteer" to perform those tasks that were once considered "obligatory" AND "pro bono". It's not a solution. We all need to reconcile ourselves to restoring "honours" to volunteerism and shunning those unwilling to contribute, or who would penalize and "regulate" their efforts w/o contributing themselves.

But then Beamish's sacred church-state separation shliboleth would inevitably rear its' ugly head. And a million points of light would go out in the vacuum it left.

Thersites said...

Giving money (charity) is NOT the solution. Giving your TIME and attention, is. But the state is NOT going to get out of your way. And if they won't get OUT of the way, then WE need to find ways (in violation of church-state separation "principles) to work WITH it.

Thersites said...

....and the only tool we have in terms of "recompense" is "honour". Without "honour", and control over the awarding of it, we're doomed.

Thersites said...

...and mr. ducky's crew is going to fight you tooth and nail over THAT ability. As he will list homosexuality and out of wedlock birth inside a new sphere of "the sacred".

Always On Watch said...

Thersites,
Excellent link, but I can't access the full book.

We can lament the road that got us here. But the road we were on wasn't "all that great" to begin with.

Agreed. Ms. Jacoby touched upon that in her book.

I do recall what happened when my paternal grandmother Ia minister's widow) needed nursing-home care. Her two surviving children, one of them my father, picked up the remainder of the tab after the church's portion. The end result: my father couldn't afford to pay for my college education, which I had to terminate after getting my B.A. Had I not received a scholarship that paid in full for the first two years of that degree, I'd likely not have gotten in much college at all.

And that business of affording one's children's education is a major factor if children are made legally and financially responsible for their parents' elder care. Plus, of course, many adult children would have to leave the work force to care for their elder parent(s). Long gone are the days when women didn't work outside the home; in those bygone days, at least one female member of the younger generation was usually available to tend one's parent(s); such was the case in my mother's family when one daughter stayed with both her disabled parents until they passed away. Of course, later on, that one aunt of mine, having no children, ended up without any assets or nest egg -- and she died in a state-run nursing home after ten years of living there.

Thersites said...

I'm proud to keep the elderly, too weak to work" within my sphere of the sacred. I'm all for kicking the "undeserving poor" off retirement and welfare rolls. But without the ability to bestow "honours" to certain and specific charitable activites, all will be for naught. I personally plan on working until I'm too weak to work, and too incompetent to think clearly. And so should every American. Sispyhus pushing the rock. THAT's life. Anybody who promises you different, is a liar and someone trying to cheat you.

Always On Watch said...

Thersites,
Giving money (charity) is NOT the solution. Giving your TIME and attention, is. But the state is NOT going to get out of your way.

No kidding! Regulation upon regulation -- and interference from adult protective services, too.

BTW, have you been reading about Theodoric James? If you can't access that link, try THIS ONE (without pictures).

Always On Watch said...

Thersites,
That distant cousin of mine that I mentioned in an earlier comment: her neighbors also paid for the funeral, never dreaming they would be reimbursed. Good people, who helped my cousin for years even before her final decline.

Of all the neighbors I have on this block, one and only one can be counted upon to come up here and give Mr. AOW some help. When they retire and move away...

Thersites said...

At one time, the family was all the government one could ever expect to experience.

Then came a crew of politicans with all their hopey-changey's. And we allowed them to destroy the former in pursuit of the latter. Shame on us.

And beamish, as far as I'm concerned, all your comments represent are sour grapes. Either grab an oar, or get the 'f out of the boat. I'm tired of rowing your ass around.

beamish said...

WTF happened to conservatism in America?

FDR struck the death blow as far as what we're discussing here goes.

He had help. Churches both Catholic and Protestant at the time really carried the water for turning over community and social responsibilities to the State.

As I've said already, Social Security and Medicare are in dire need of reform. But eliminating them? Won't happen unless the law makes the children and grandchildren legally and financially responsible for the care of their elders. Catch 22 applies to that as well.

Is the cause so lost that conservatives actually need to advocate a law mandating the giving a crap about one's family?

Really?

The left-wing sob stories that always make "reform" efforts a sick, illusory joke and cancellation talk blasphemous are actually true?

Rhetorical questions, I know.

How can we beat the left if we never fight it? Ever?

beamish said...

And beamish, as far as I'm concerned, all your comments represent are sour grapes. Either grab an oar, or get the 'f out of the boat. I'm tired of rowing your ass around.

Oh, please. Go quote some dead Greek homo to your other sock puppets on the federal clock, piker.

-FJ said...

There are two sides to every coin. An no "single/one" side is more important than the other.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Is the cause so lost that conservatives actually need to advocate a law mandating the giving a crap about one's family?

Maybe.

Let me ask you this: How many people do you personally know who drop their lives to do elder care for a family member? Today, I mean. Let's say since 1980.

-FJ said...

Oh, please. Go quote some dead Greek homo to your other sock puppets on the federal clock, piker.

Still jealous, beamish? "Green" is so unflattering a colour for you.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Last year, my 94-year-old aunt was dying of pancreatic cancer, her granddaughter couldn't quit her job to do the caregiving because her granddaughter worked the job that provided health insurance for her family. The company for which the granddaughter works would give only 2 weeks of family-leave time; my aunt's death took about 6 weeks.

I think that a lot of people are in the same situation as that granddaughter of my aunt's.

-FJ said...

If you want to be taken seriously, beamish, sometimes you have to be serious. You, evidently, do not.

-FJ said...

How can we beat the left if we never fight it? Ever?

Beat the Left? You think there's a chance you're going to beat the Left?

There is no "beating" them. There is only the fight. As mr. ducky has so rightly concluded, "the struggle is eternal". What, you don't believe him?

Always On Watch said...

And, of course, in my own case as a self-employed person, I had to continue to work even though Mr. AOW needed me at home. If not for TMW, I don't know what I would have done!

I could no longer wait for Mr. AOW to get better before taking him out of the nursing home. The insurance was running out!

To this day, I'd have a difficult time working a full-time job and caregiving Mr. AOW too -- even aside from my back injury which does actually preclude my working full time. And all other family members are working as well. Catch 22 of another sort!

Now, we COULD avail ourselves of county services. But those are on the taxpayers' backs, and some of those adult protective services people are thieves -- never mind that they've supposedly been vetted.

The assistance of family members and church friends goes only so far -- great during the crisis period but not so good over the long haul. People simply don't like seeing a once vibrant man as young as Mr. AOW so totally dependent.

beamish said...

Oh, please. Go quote some dead Greek homo to your other sock puppets on the federal clock, piker.

Still jealous, beamish? "Green" is so unflattering a colour for you.

Not jealous. Sickened. You really do think highly of your PowerPoint presentations over at the useless end of that useless government agency, don'tcha pooky?

Whatsamatta? Private sector too competitive for ya?

Always On Watch said...

I'm not spouting one of those left-wing sob stories when I talk about my situation. Mr. AOW and I have prided ourselves in not being on the dole by even as much as working a government job. See where our conservatism has gotten us? Ugh. We're constantly being pushed in the direction of Medicaid -- by the health insurance company and the health care industry. Mr. AOW and I are scrambling to avoid being forced into Medicaid. The scary thing is that, right now, Social Security income plays a big part in our not being forced into Medicaid. Ultimately, if Mr. AOW has another serious stroke, divorce will be the only solution so that I myself can afford being forced into Medicaid or the like.

-FJ said...

I'm in the private sector, "pookie." I've never been otherwise, except for a stint in the USNR. lol!

Z said...

FJ "There is no "beating" them. There is only the fight. As mr. ducky has so rightly concluded, "the struggle is eternal". What, you don't believe him?"

I believe him but I think the fight's over. The left and their morality is winning...the left and their insulting media is winning...the left and its indoctrination in schools is winning...

We must keep fighting because we love this country, but when people admire the celebs they admire now, when people expect entitlements, when flash mobs are growing, when people actually BELIEVE Obama wants the best thing for this whole country...(and I could go on and on and so could you)...then we have bigger problems than even I thought.

Z said...

AOW; you have been amazing in all that you're doing...reading your comments is tough because we all love you and hate to see you and Mr AOW going through all this, but you're fast becoming my hero :-)

beamish said...

If you want to be taken seriously, beamish, sometimes you have to be serious. You, evidently, do not.

Says the non-essential government employee.

-FJ said...

Now, we COULD avail ourselves of county services.

AoW. Please, avail yourself of any and all help, public and/or private, that you feel could be of service to you. There is no shame in advocating on your own and Mr. AoW's behalf. There's a saying that "temperance does not befit a needy man" (and/or woman). And if it doesn't work out, then discontinue unhelpful services.

My FIL used to help coodinate benefits for the elderly in his NY neighborhood. He got ramps build, interiors modified, home-healthcare services started, etc. He did taxes for shut-ins and served in colorguards for veteran funeral services.

You need to uncover and utilize whatever help's available to you.

-FJ said...

Says the non-essential government employee

And even saying it three times won't make it true in your Snark hunt hunt. I'm a for-profit corporate shill, beamish. Always have been. Always will be.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
I can't imagine myself as anyone's hero.

It is easier to keep Mr. AOW at home now than it was back in November 2009. But we still have that hospital bed and bedside commode in the living room -- hardly a pleasing sight!

And I am ROYALLY PISSED OFF that our friends and family have, for the most part, abandoned us. Mr. AOW is so lonely! Once I return to work in September, he's going to be in a down frame of mind.

Always On Watch said...

FJ,
Please, avail yourself of any and all help, public and/or private, that you feel could be of service to you. There is no shame in advocating on your own and Mr. AoW's behalf.

That Mennonite background of my father's family and passed along to me after a fashion has made me into an individual who has a very difficult time asking for help. I accept the help if offered, but barely.

Unless people been where Mr. AOW and I are now -- or who directly know of that kind of situation in their own family -- they cannot imagine what a nightmare this is. And, truly, the odds are that something like this will happen to most couples who aren't separated by actual death: so often one member of a couple becomes disabled to one extent or another. We just can never imagine such a thing happening to us -- until it happens. Just losing "the division of labor" that any couple has utilized during the course of their marriage is one helluva stressful loss, particularly for the one who isn't disabled.

Always On Watch said...

For example, today I have to scramble to pick up my car at the repair garage. Somebody has to give me a ride up there, and my neighbor is on vacation. If all else fails, I will take a taxi.

Then, this fall, there is gutter cleaning and branch trimming to do. I can't do those things any longer.

Hell, just tending to the cats' litter pans is one helluva chore with my bad back.

And what am I going to do with all those mechanic's tools that Mr. AOW has but can no longer use? That shed is a mess!

On and on I could whine. But what's the point?

Mr. AOW does live in fear that "something" will happen to me: car accident, a fall, heart attack, torn cartilage, whatever.

Z said...

AOW "I can't imagine myself as anyone's hero."

TOUGH! :-) Get used to it!

"And I am ROYALLY PISSED OFF that our friends and family have, for the most part, abandoned us. Mr. AOW is so lonely! Once I return to work in September, he's going to be in a down frame of mind."

That's unconscionable...as you already know, I'm SO SO sorry about that. I'd say to get him commenting on the blogs but I'm thinking his one hand doesn't type so well..?

Always On Watch said...

Z,
Mr. AOW is a hunt-and-peck typist -- and with only one hand now. His very slight speech impediment likely precludes the use of voice recognition software, but I'm not sure about that. Should look into it, I suppose.

beamish said...

AOW,

I'm not spouting one of those left-wing sob stories when I talk about my situation.

I never said that you were. But extreme and rare cases like yours are what the left trots out to make their pitches for continued and increased entitlements when they and we know damned well that most people tapping those entitlements are getting back exponentially more than they ever paid in, especially when you examine Medicare benefits.

We always see the naked foreign kid with flies on his face begging for rice on TV. We never examine the left-wing centrally-planned government that put his ass there, much less push back against it happening here. We instead roll out the red carpet for it, championing as we do the myth the only thing saving us from being Zimbabwe is MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

God forbid we don't ever follow those hardcore leftist Teabaggers in their complacency and complicity towards degenerating America to the point of not even putting effort towards eating the flies crawling on our faces. Maybe someone will ship rice to us, huh?

All I'm saying is that time for reform done came and went while everyone intimidated each other with demogoguery and sob stories and paraded absolute bullshit arguments about how most of the retired actually paid for what they'll get.

Some generation has to cast the chains of debt off and say, "no no, F you, you pay for your retirement yourself."

Might as well be mine. My generation merely thinks it's fun to slaughter thousands in a video game.

The next generation wouldn't and won't know how to go about giving a shit about you or me even if there were money in it.

-FJ said...

The Theodoric James case you linked is yet another sad situation. My son works for a private non-profit social services provider in Syracuse, dealing mainly with the children of mentally challenged adults. Needless to say, he's rapidly reaching his compassion burn-out limit and talking openly of switching professions... which would be a shame because of all the experience in dealing with these issues that he has gained. But the feeling of "helplessness" he gets, of having to appeal to state bureaucrats for intervention, frustrates him to no end.

-FJ said...

My generation merely thinks it's fun to slaughter thousands in a video game.

And why limit to a virtual world what you can accomplish in the real one, right, beamish?

-FJ said...

Thank G_d for ludic fallacies.

Always On Watch said...

Back later. I've got a ride to the garage!

beamish said...

I'm a for-profit corporate shill, beamish. Always have been. Always will be.

Congrats on the drive-thru window office. I'll have a large order of fries with that. Where's your name tag?

Just so you know, you lost this exchange the moment you tried to pull rank with a class warfare argument, lefty.

I don't care how much money you've made in your life. At the maximum SS and Medicare taxable income amounts possible each year you've worked taxed at the percentage rates of the year you paid them totalled over time, you're going to get back or be eligible to get back hella more than you paid in provided you live to see your 3rd to 6th year of retirement and beyond. And then your spouse gets hella free government money beyond what you paid in when you finally lay down for your dirt nap.

Oh, wait, that's right. Those 51 million Social Security retirement recipients also include checks for dead people...

Four people working to finance the retirement benefits of someone who may not even be alive and well after they're burned through what they paid in.

Yeah, they "deserve" that. It's paid in full. We shouldn't even be have to tax people to cover it, right? What?

Still unmolested is my argument that the "I paid in all my life" song 'n' dance is a crock.

Joe Conservative said...

Bellman,

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, even on the fifth try.

Joe Conservative said...

If you make more than $35K, you're going to lose money on Social Security.

beamish said...

My generation merely thinks it's fun to slaughter thousands in a video game.

And why limit to a virtual world what you can accomplish in the real one, right, beamish?

To everything... (turn, turn, turn)
...there is a season

This has all happened before and it will all happen again.

Ever read George Mosse's "The Crisis of German Ideology?" (1956)

The intellectual roots of German national socialism came straight the F out of early 20th Century American progressivism.

I don't call Nazis "leftists" just to make a cute joke. Hitler sprang up in a labor union hall in times just like we have now.

Community activism was his thing, see...

Joe Conservative said...

Ah, so you DO have a role model. I didn't think you were coming up with all this "kill the parasite" nonsense on your own.

Joe Conservative said...

btw - You might want to peruse your numbers again.

You can tell the difference between a Social Security column and a Medicare column, can't you?

I'd hate to confuse you with facts.

beamish said...

If you make more than $35K, you're going to lose money on Social Security.

Aha! That's where our disagreement lies. You're looking at a doom and gloom projection of what the person that will retire in 2045 is potentially faced with sans "reform" to perpetuate the stiffing of the next generation, what I'm looking at right NOW, a majority of retirees in 2011 that are presently living on much more money than they ever "paid all their lives" for.

My picture tracks the guy that went to work in 1964 and retired in 2011 at age 65, paying in the maximum established by law each year. Even charitably adjusting for inflation, that guy that paid on every dollar subject to SS and Medicare taxes he could possibly make is freeloading on other people's dime after 6 years of retirement.

It's not in contention that the Ponzi scheme falls apart the further you go into the future.

I'm looking at real data to subject the claims of the "I paid in all my life" crowd to verification and scrutiny. We know the tax rates and the maximum taxable amounts going all the way back to 1935 and 1965 respectively. Nobody retired right now can go back and fudge the numbers on what they actualy paid in.

You're looking at speculation on a future rife with all sorts of possible legislative changes. The scary picture followed by the battlecry to tax the shit out of people even more.

I know what the tax rates and maximum taxables are that today's retired and retiring "paid in all their lives."

You have a guess at an uncertain projection that hinges on a lot of malleable variables. what if the maximum taxable income or the rate changes between now and 2045? What if the retirement age changes?

Your chart is as about as useful as saying the system is breaking down. We knew that already.

I know today's retired and retiring want more in taxes from me and the rest of everyone working BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES DIDN'T PAY IN ENOUGH FOR WHAT THEY'RE GETTING RIGHT FRIGGIN' NOW.

Therein lies my argument. Ida May Fuller is the rule, not the exception.

I won't get back anything near what I'll have paid in when I retire BECAUSE current retirees RIGHT NOW are by and large getting back much much more than they EVER paid in.

I was never looking forward to the pipe dream of Social Security benefits being there anyway. No one born after 1965 should.

I'm merely examining why it won't be there. And it's because today's retirees can't stop themselves from eating it fast enough after burning through the relatively tiny amount they contributed "all their life" from their 35 cents an hour job back in the goody ol' days.

Joe Conservative said...

I take it back. You can't distinguish columns. Best sue those public school teachers, beamish. There's a 2010 row. Follow it.

Joe Conservative said...

Your argument is "passe". Current retiree's get less benefit than paid in. And by 2045, they get taken to the cleaners w/o any tricky ""future legislative changes" to the system.

Joe Conservative said...

If there's any "fallacy" in the numbers, it's in believing that a dollar taken 40 years ago and "forcibly loaned" to the government is only worth a dollar paid back by the government tomorrow. That's where you've got to embrace "Shari'a" compliant finances.

Joe Conservative said...

ps - And as far as "privatizing" Social Security as an "option" goes? Well let's just see how things go in SCOTUS for the Obamacare "individual mandate".

If you can't force an individual to buy PRIVATE health insurance, do you really think it's possible to force him to invest money towards his own retirement?

beamish said...

Ah, so you DO have a role model. I didn't think you were coming up with all this "kill the parasite" nonsense on your own.

And it didn't occur to Hitler on his own either. You gotta go back around 50 to 80 years in German history before Hitler came on the scene to really get a feel for the political and philosophical petri dish he sprang out of. Evil though he certainly was, Hitler didn't kill all those millions of people by himself, one by one - he had help, volunteers even.

His argument for kicking off the euthanasia centers in the German health care system was of course economical.

Let Obama's Magnificent Depression continue to deepen and the mood against pensioners and retirees will probably darken further.

It can't happen here? It's already started.

We're living in a culture that is already that pissed off. We're on a planet that is already that pissed off.

You don't really think the violence in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and England is over some hacked document on Wikileaks, do you?

You don't really think that violence will stay "over there" do you?

We're praising people who overthrow their governments. Caveat lector.

beamish said...

If there's any "fallacy" in the numbers, it's in believing that a dollar taken 40 years ago and "forcibly loaned" to the government is only worth a dollar paid back by the government tomorrow. That's where you've got to embrace "Shari'a" compliant finances.

Do you really believe the government is currently paying out less than $5.32 for every one dollar it collected in Social Security taxes in 1971? They're not.

They're taxing four workers three times as much as the rate the retiree paid taxes in at, to cover his ass after his meager "lifetime" contribution into the system ran out.

And guess what, that maximum taxable income in 1971 - $7800 adjusted for inflation, falls around $59,000 shy of the 2010 maximum taxable income.

Current workers are being taxed more to cover the benefits of a retired worker that was taxed much less on even less money, and it takes four current workers to pay for their benefits.

They paid in all their life and are being short-changed?

Bull F'n shit.



I don't have to embrace usury-free lending. There is no interest gain or inflation adjustment under the current system already. Just like that 1971 penny in your pocket, no bank or store is going to count it as being worth a nickel on account of that penny being worth five cents adjusted for 40 years of inflation.

(Not that it matters, given the "Social Security trust fund" is just one massive stack of IOUs.)

You're assuming things that aren't actually happening under the current Ponzi scheme. Your payroll taxes from years gone by aren't gaining value through interest or inflation while the SSA holds it in a mason jar buried in Topeka. They're already spent and replaced with IOUs.

Most retirees today have already exhausted what they themselves put in and are now freeloading. Math doesn't lie.

Z said...

Beamish, none of your family's receiving SS or Medicare?

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
If you can't force an individual to buy PRIVATE health insurance, do you really think it's possible to force him to invest money towards his own retirement?

Now, there's an interesting point.

For some years when I was working at a non-profit private school, I didn't pay into Social Security and set up my own IRA ($2000/year and taxes deferred). Then, when that school was forced into providing Social Security benefits via payroll deduction, I was forced by law not to fund my IRA (no Roth IRA then available). Only later could one be coerced into paying into Social Security and, at the same time, have a private retirement account with the taxes-deferred option.

I hope that my recollection is correct. I think it is. All that happened years ago.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
But extreme and rare cases like yours are what the left trots out to make their pitches...

Well, that's true enough. I have no idea as to how many such cases as mine exist.

One time, the family doc said to Mr. AOW, "Why don't you get yourself one of those electric scooters? Medicare will pay for it."

Ahem. Mr. AOW doesn't qualify for Medicare until 30 months after the qualifying incident (September 2009).

I remember a time when Medicare didn't pay for all that stuff and just paid for the bare bones.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
We clearly agree on this: Medicare needs serious reform. So does Medicaid.

I've already said that I think that Social Security benefits should be limited or eliminated above a certain threshold of income. And I mean income from any source, including certain passive income.

Hell, one of the richest men I ever knew collected Social Security disability (brain cancer), then turned around and donated $3 million to a hospital to build a wing. Of course, this man didn't live very long so Social Security made a profit on that fellow.

Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid is rampant. Incredibly rampant. People have very little idea as to how great the extent of that fraud is. And the double-dipping whereby Medicare pays all the bills for a car accident, the plaintiff collects a huge settlement, and Medicare doesn't come after any of the funds. A private health insurance company will! I've been down that road with the car accident I had back in 2005, but ultimately the insurance company couldn't collect anything from my puny little settlement (less than my bills) because the health insurance coverage was employer based as opposed to privately held by me as an individual. The Health Care Reform Act was supposed to address that double dipping issue. But who the hell knows what was in the bill?

beamish said...

Beamish, none of your family's receiving SS or Medicare?

Sure there are some. They're amazed when they're shown the point they began receiving benefits exceeding their lifetime of contributions. People in my family have a habit of staying alive into their upper 80s in age. That point typically hits in the second or third year of their retirement. They all claim what they get isn't "enough" (what amount of free money is?) but not one of them can prove they've been short-changed. Even the wealthiest of retirees in my family know they're freeloading on Social Security largesse after 9 years of retirement.

And then there's the spouses of the dead who continue to draw out as beneficiaries.

We're never going to "reform" entitlements until the free ride the retired and their survivors have been getting for decades is ended.

The glut of Baby Doomer generation retirees over the next 35 years is going to break this malfunctioning system.

I don't want to pay higher taxes to help three other workers shoulder the burden of a retiree that never had to pay in SS and Medicare taxes anything near what I do.

Now what? Knife to throat, I'm thinking "screw the guy that paid in less yesterday to get more now" over "tax me more today to get less tomorrow."

Thersites said...

The glut of Baby Doomer generation retirees over the next 35 years is going to break this malfunctioning system.

As already proven countless times, 2010 retiree's (baby boomers) paid MORE is taxes than they will EVER draw in Social Security retirement benefits. The same is NOT true for Medicare, but it IS true for Social Security RETIREMENT benefits.

You want to dig people up out of their graves and sell their coffins, grab a shovel. But STOP making out baby boomers as Social Security cheats. They may indeed be Medicare cheats, but they're NOT Social Security cheats. And those in the higher income brackets aren't even Medicare cheats, either. You're just demonizing a HUGE group of innocent people who've already been 'fd over by theur parents political representatives. All you're doing now is pissing them off.

Thersites said...

...and "throw grandma out on the street, TODAY!" is NOT an acceptable plan. You'll have to do a LOT better than that.

Thersites said...

I don't CARE what YOU think is fair. FAIRNESS and JUSTICE has got NOTHING to do with it.

End Social Security retirement benefits to everyone retiring AFTER 2020 if you want to (giving them some time to prepare). But you are NEVER going to throw a retired person currently on the train, OFF of it. The vast majority of those people have NO OTHER OPTIONS.

Means test Social Security retirement benefits, if you'd like. But this tanker left port sixty years ago, and quick maneuvers are completely OUT OF THE QUESTION.

Thersites said...

The Ryan plan throws people like me off the Medicare gravy train and forces my to buy my own private insurance (Constitutional issues not withstanding). THAT is a viable plan. Pulling Aunt Sally's respirator plug tomorrow is an irresponsible, careless and cynically dangerous plan. One that will provide mr. ducky with political fuel to rule for centuries. One I'm sure the Obama Campaign thanks YOU for.

Thersites said...

and btw - every day you delay a current recipients retirement is another day YOUR generation will have to wait to fill their jobs. SO if you want to wait until 2040 to get your next promotion, by ALL means, screw with the baby boomers retirements.

-FJ said...

"Up and Out's," my motto.

Of course, you'll never make it past the glass ceiling, beamish.

Ta-TA!

Elmers Brother said...

Don't you have to actually be working to be paying SS tax?

sue said...

Z and all:

Yes, I call myself a Liberal, but I want to contribute to this discussion in the best way I know how.

I have no idea who the guy is who wrote this. I cut it out of our paper during the 2008 elections.

If you read this you can clearly see that he is a Republican, and more than that I know he is expressing the frustration that we all feel right now.

Certainly no offense is meant here - but I hope it brings a smile to everyone's face, as it did to mine when I first read it.

I've been saving it to use on a special occasion - and I think the time is now.

~~~

Let's all just shut up

by Dr. John A. Williams
Peoria, Illinois

Blue states, shut up. City dwellers, shut up. Europeans and their friends, shut up. Hollywood,
shut up. Democratic senators, shut up. Critics of the Iraq war, shut up. Secular thinkers, shut up. Pro-choice advocates, shut up. Poor people, shut up. Gays, shut up.

Democracy, shut up.

~~~

:-)

beamish said...

As already proven countless times, 2010 retiree's (baby boomers) paid MORE is taxes than they will EVER draw in Social Security retirement benefits. The same is NOT true for Medicare, but it IS true for Social Security RETIREMENT benefits.

Except for that glaring fact that it isn't. Being taxed at a lower percentage rate on a smaller sum of money that doesn't draw interest or adjust for inflation (and is already spent... remember this is a Ponzi scheme...) will NOT yield to a cumulative sum that pays for even a quarter of the Social Security retirement benefits current retirees enjoy.

Only the fraudulent and dismal math skills of the "take in two trillion and spend five trillion" thieving Baby Doomer generation currently poised to rip America off even further will paint the illusion and spin the shell game into appearing to have "paid more in taxes than they will ever draw in benefits." Sorry gramps, 6% tax on $100,000 is A LOT MORE that 2% tax on $7,000 yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever. We'll work on shapes and colors next. No, no, crayons aren't food.

You want to dig people up out of their graves and sell their coffins, grab a shovel. But STOP making out baby boomers as Social Security cheats. They may indeed be Medicare cheats, but they're NOT Social Security cheats. And those in the higher income brackets aren't even Medicare cheats, either. You're just demonizing a HUGE group of innocent people who've already been 'fd over by theur parents political representatives. All you're doing now is pissing them off.

They chose the option of being f'd over by their parents political representatives. Let them bend over and take it. They made a bad call. Sucks to be them. See ya, bye bye.

My generation didn't promise you retirement bliss. Go knock on FDR's tomb.

...and "throw grandma out on the street, TODAY!" is NOT an acceptable plan. You'll have to do a LOT better than that.

Not acceptable to WHO? The grandma that failed to actually contribute enough to Social Security to cover her third year of retirement and beyond? Shouldn't she ever have to grow up and take care of herself, pull her own weight for once in her life? Just because she can't do math doesn't mean we have to share her delusion.

I don't CARE what YOU think is fair. FAIRNESS and JUSTICE has got NOTHING to do with it.

Precisely. As long as the system rips enough people off to keep you happy, who cares about who it's ripping off? We certainly shouldn't even bother trying to get YOUR generation to man up and pay for itself, huh? You might get a hangnail or something from wagging your finger and talking so much shit.

beamish said...

End Social Security retirement benefits to everyone retiring AFTER 2020 if you want to (giving them some time to prepare). But you are NEVER going to throw a retired person currently on the train, OFF of it. The vast majority of those people have NO OTHER OPTIONS.

And this is my problem how? Even though Social Security was NEVER designed NOR intended to be a retiree's sole source of income at any point in the history of this scam, the vast majority of those people, who DID NOT PAY ENOUGH ALL THEIR LIVES TO COVER THEMSELVES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AS A SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME AT RETIREMENT have waited until they've squandered their freeloading to the point they're out of options to ask me to pony up more in SS taxes and retire later so they can continue to freeload?

Some time to prepare? What's wrong with the money they saved paying three times less in Social Security taxes on twelve times less maximum taxable income over their lifetimes? Wasn't 40+ years of not being obliged to pull their own weight enough?

Oh wait, we're talking about the generation that thinks 60 cents will pay a five dollar bill and keeps electing politicians that think the same.

Means test Social Security retirement benefits, if you'd like. But this tanker left port sixty years ago, and quick maneuvers are completely OUT OF THE QUESTION.

Sink the tanker.

The Ryan plan throws people like me off the Medicare gravy train and forces my to buy my own private insurance (Constitutional issues not withstanding). THAT is a viable plan.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic is no plan at all. Especially when you're still forcing people onto the boat and chaining them to those deck chairs.

Pulling Aunt Sally's respirator plug tomorrow is an irresponsible, careless and cynically dangerous plan.

But it isn't Aunt Sally's respirator plug. SHE DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.

One that will provide mr. ducky with political fuel to rule for centuries. One I'm sure the Obama Campaign thanks YOU for.

He doesn't have to thank me. He's got plenty of his fellow socialists running around under mispelled Tea Party signage trying to blame Mexicans for the fact that they didn't pay into the system enough to cover themselves.

and btw - every day you delay a current recipients retirement is another day YOUR generation will have to wait to fill their jobs. SO if you want to wait until 2040 to get your next promotion, by ALL means, screw with the baby boomers retirements.

And after they're retired for two years and freeloading off of money they didn't pay in, they can go get a job or eat shit.

Thersites said...

Sorry gramps, 6% tax on $100,000 is A LOT MORE that 2% tax on $7,000 yesterday,

1956.

THAT is the last time the OASDI was 2%. And if you count the employer "match" , it was NEVER as low as 2% in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the program.

We certainly shouldn't even bother trying to get YOUR generation to man up and pay for itself, huh?

WE already HAVE (as PROVEN 5x+) AND have even made a dent in our parents' GREATEST generations over-drawing. If there's any "not MANning up", it's the whiners in GEN-X who've always had the world handed to them on silver platters.

You like splitting Americans and pitting them against each other, beamish, YOU got it, Sh*t 4 brains.

And after they're retired for two years and freeloading off of money they didn't pay in, they can go get a job or eat shit.

If we were to ever GET what we paid in, we'd be retiring at 62, NOT 67. Man up, pussy. But them, I do love to hear a WOMAN make noise as she's getting f'd.

A lie repeated often enough may be believed, but that certainly DOESN'T make it "true".

But please, another encore. The sound of asses braying makes me harder.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
And after they're retired for two years and freeloading off of money they didn't pay in, they can go get a job or eat shit.

I guess that I know a different group of retirees. Over 1/2 of the retirees whom I personally know or have known had a major medical event within two years of retirement. By major medical event, I mean one that prevented working in any capacity.

What I'm about to say sounds sarcastic and condescending, but I don't mean the statement in that way. You know that I like you too much to treat you that way, Beamish.

Anyway, here's my statement: When I was in my 30s and 40s, I couldn't imagine the day would ever come that I couldn't work as I'd always worked; one car accident changed that.
Hell, I can barely do housework now. My bad luck that the individual who rear-ended me when he ran a stop sign was an illegal immigrant, to whom the court gave the sympathy and so stated to my face!

But age itself can do the same thing -- especially depending on the kind of work that one does.

beamish said...

There is no math that will make the total accumulation of a current retiree's career of paying Social Security taxes come anywhere near what they'll get back from Social Security or leave to their spouse when they die.

They paid a lower rate on less money.

Adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity is irrelevant because a.) the money's already spent, and b.) the reason there is any inflation or difference in purchasing power parity is because that money was spent and then some... it's all debt. The retiree didn't pay jack, just sent the bill to his kids and grandkids.

Want to know why I'm pissed off?

Because I'm tired of hearing the most fiscally irresponsible generation this country has ever seen say "Oops, we f'd up. Can you pay more?"

My answer is "Go F yourselves."

beamish said...

Sorry gramps, 6% tax on $100,000 is A LOT MORE that 2% tax on $7,000 yesterday,

1956.

THAT is the last time the OASDI was 2%. And if you count the employer "match" , it was NEVER as low as 2% in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the program.


But the employer match ISN'T "what you paid in all your life."

And it still doesn't accumulate to pay for the freeloading lifestyle current retirees enjoy.

We certainly shouldn't even bother trying to get YOUR generation to man up and pay for itself, huh?

WE already HAVE (as PROVEN 5x+) AND have even made a dent in our parents' GREATEST generations over-drawing. If there's any "not MANning up", it's the whiners in GEN-X who've always had the world handed to them on silver platters.

So, you shouldn't have to raise my Social Security taxes at all since you have it all covered, huh?

A $14 Trillion national debt is a silver platter? Man, did you senile old coots ever have math skills?

And after they're retired for two years and freeloading off of money they didn't pay in, they can go get a job or eat shit.

If we were to ever GET what we paid in, we'd be retiring at 62, NOT 67.

Correction: After you get what you paid in, you'll be a freeloader by age 70.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I so get why you're pissed off -- on both an ideological and practical level.

I remember when Social Security tax and Medicare tax coming out of Mr. AOW's check was a low amount -- very low. Then, at some point, that changed. Those two taxes were at least triple the fed and state income tax withholding COMBINED.

Those two taxes are killing me too in my SE business.

I know that I sound like a broken record, but the only out I see is making children and grandchildren legally and fiscally accountable for elder care. Those of us without children -- I don't know about us.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 277   Newer› Newest»