USPS, National Park Service, CFPB, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Health and Human Services, Social Security, Department of Transportation, CDC, National Institutes of Health?
Do you know people who really rely on Soc Sec/Medicare/ or Medicaid? Are they family?
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
USPS, National Park Service, CFPB, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Health and Human Services, Social Security, Department of Transportation, CDC, National Institutes of Health?
Wouldn’t “not SOUGHT out by the private sector” be more grammatically correct? Of course, you just told me you were one of those “highly seeked” coming out of college…who am I to critique?
Every program needs to be exactly proportional? There's no reason for that. Most taxes screw the poor and the middle class. So let the highest income earners pay a little bit disproportionately in payroll taxes. Not a big deal.
166k, the income limit from last year, is the very definition of middle class. Yes, if you continue to collect social security past this amount and not pay a higher benefit, you are screwing over the middle class.
It is a big deal.
I have a high school friend who was a very successful physician and chief of OB/GYN/Maternity at a very large hospital in addition to his private practice.
Obviously he earned a very high salary towards the end of his active practice days and always paid maximum into SSI.
His monthly check is far less than his income was obviously and he’s maxed out at somewhere around $4800 a month I think. He began collecting at age 70 when benefit amounts stop increasing for everyone. So even though he’d be classified as a “wealthy” person the amount he collects is far less than what he was earning while working.
I support the elimination of an earnings cap - or subjecting it to an automatic increase on a periodic basis at minimum every ten years. Five would be better.
Obviously he earned a very high salary towards the end of his active practice days and always paid maximum into SSI.
His monthly check is far less than his income was obviously and he’s maxed out at somewhere around $4800 a month I think. He began collecting at age 70 when benefit amounts stop increasing for everyone. So even though he’d be classified as a “wealthy” person the amount he collects is far less than what he was earning while working.
I support the elimination of an earnings cap - or subjecting it to an automatic increase on a periodic basis at minimum every ten years. Five would be better.
That is the part of means testing. If their net worth is way up there then they do not need much or any of their benefit.
The hell with the really rich who dont want to help the poor. If only we could get the 100 million voters of the lower 50 % to vote against the 1 million millionaires and 2500 billionaires then this country would be more fair, there would be way more money in the hands of the lower 50% which they will spend more often and which will actually keep the economy going better which in the end helps the really rich. The really rich are a bunch of hoarding shits
How do you suppose folks depending on social security to get by will feel about this, Ms. Hysteria? >
Then you agree that everyone receiving Social security should get a 30% cut. That's what is about to happen. That is the cliff we are about to hit.
The SSA has been running on software from the 70's, of course it could be ran better with a better system. This is something that congress has refused to fund.
Those of us on SS pay a portion of our monthly checks into Medicare, deducted automatically. This year it’s $185 and has a deductible of about $275, but if your total income exceeds a certain amount your premium is adjusted to a higher amount automatically.
The top earners - maybe top 5% - already pay well over 50% of tax revenue. How much more should they pay?
No, I don’t. So the only options are to cut social security by 30% or tax the shit out of everyone with no additional benefit? Thats it?
I know many that rely on SS and medicare, friends, relatives that vote both sides. Some have savings but many couldn't make it without SS. When the largest employer moved out of town, many that were close to retirement took the SS with out enough savings, and now paying the price.
Mathematically yes. From 1980 until 2010 we had more people paying into the system than we had people drawing out, There was a surplus. Now the last these people are entering retirement. In 2034 that surplus is gone. We have done nothing to address the shortfall. We will hit that cliff if we do nothing.
I hope you are correct, but I am not confident that it will happen. During his first term, trump made no effort to do anything about it and never gave any impression that anything was being considered.
I completely agree something needs to be done. I just don't believe for one second taxing the crap out of our middle class with no additional benefit is the way to do it.
I would be more in favor of something along the lines of once you reach the cap, which is 178k this year, you are done paying into ssa until your income hits 300-400k. Once you go over that amount you get taxed an additional amount to keep social security solvent.
I am not sure what those numbers look like, but I would support something like this.
If we eliminate the cap right now, we would solve about 75% of the problem before 2034. This should have been delt with years ago.
Just an fyi, fwiw....
latest rumor is that doj attorneys currently focused on foreign corrupt practices act enforcement are being retasked to health care fraud, waste and abuse.
latest rumor is that doj attorneys currently focused on foreign corrupt practices act enforcement are being retasked to health care fraud, waste and abuse.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
How else are Trump appointees going to get their payment from whichever foreign nation wants a favor?
i have to say, FCPA is a complete pita -- bribes unacceptable, but "facilitation payments" are? how do you apply it in the ME where every company is run by somebody who's affiliated with royal family members who are otherwise foreign public officials?
And as to your question, I suspect that most trump appointees will not themselves be handling personal business transactions with foreign public officials, given the obviousness factor, and instead it'll be more like a hunter/don jr. scenario.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
You are probably right. I ran a large global organization and experienced these issues firsthand. Our “general manager” in our ME HQ in Dubai was the only citizen of UAE on the payroll. He was paid the most, never showed up to do a thing except when we had government business in the area. A complete scam, but also the only way we could do business there.
