BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > Self-Reliance & Preparedness > Financial

Financial Anything money-related that does not have a dedicated board.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-24-2015, 10:02 AM
hunter88 hunter88 is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,931
Default

Quote:
Still not agreeing with you on that - seen too many who worked public sector, hauling in one or more public pensions. When you use your SS to pay greens fees, you don't need SS.
To me this just seems like another example of penalizing someone because they were successful.

If some billionaire or multi millionaire wants to tell the Feds to keep his SS he doesn't need it, that's fine. But if the Feds took it from you with the intent of giving it back upon retirement, then it should be given back no matter how much a person makes or how successful they've become.
__________________
Gun control: It's like fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober drivers.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-24-2015, 11:25 AM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena View Post
Again, all of us pay into programs/plans and never collect a dime. Workers comp, insurance of all flavors (the number of people who pay life insurance premiums for decades then lapse the policy would amaze you), unemployment come to mind. I make too much money to qualify for food stamps but there may come a day when I don't and I've paid into that too. So under your line of thinking, I should get food stamps because hey, it is my money. I'm sure other programs/plan to which I've contributed would jump at sending my fair share
IF you want it and have been taxed for it involuntarily have right to to it. Food stamps to SS are apples and oranges . SS is a specific tax for a specific purpose. Food stamps are from General revenue and your representative govt decided for you. Don't like it change the the govt.
Don't be a progressive !

Quote:
I've hit the top wages a few times in my working career. And lest you not forget, social security is meant to be supplemental. Do those collecting a 5 figure pension need a supplement? The intent of program was to minimize the number of elderly living in poverty.
You keep neglecting the point that if a person is " involuntarily" taxed then they have a right to the benifits they paid for . Need is not the issue ,


Quote:
And are you okay that private pension plans, again, to which workers paid into, decreased the workers' pension based on social security benefit? I see what the "offset" did to my grandfather's pension. I still have a copy of the official worksheet.

That is not just private pensions it is all pensions. I am retired civil service and and am fully vested in SS but my SS is reduced substantially. Aren't private pension plans the result of agreements between employee ( or thier Union ) and the employer? Yes . The point is the agreement is voluntary.

But when taxes are taken " involuntarily" the taxed have a right to the Benifits no matter what.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!

Last edited by MissouriFree; 08-24-2015 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-24-2015, 01:08 PM
Colorado Female Colorado is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,153
Default

I think my nephew's wife was a bit put out I was drawing twice the SS she got. I had worked steady 34 years and my last check with vacation and it was full and 1/4 of sick leave and it was full. Big check and got it the 35th year. As quit late Dec. Hers increased when nephew retired.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-25-2015, 04:56 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena View Post
And lest you not forget, social security is meant to be supplemental.

.

No, SS was a political ploy & scam meant to buy votes with taxpayer money from its inception. Life expectancy in 1936 was less than 60 yrs. http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html Those clever Dems figured they'd collect tax from everybody but only have to pay out to about 40% of people. (Similar argument for Medicare.)

Then penicillin was invented 4 yrs later. So much for that plan.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-26-2015, 01:53 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
No, SS was a political ploy & scam meant to buy votes with taxpayer money from its inception..

There is conspiracy board else where. A life expectancy chart proves absolutely zero.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-27-2015, 11:00 AM
hunter88 hunter88 is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
No, SS was a political ploy & scam meant to buy votes with taxpayer money from its inception..

There is conspiracy board else where. A life expectancy chart proves absolutely zero.
As to political ploy. I thought I remembered reading at one time that the SS idea came out during the Presidential campaign. During the Democratic primary an opponent came up with the idea of capping income at 1 million dollars. Anything over that was paid as taxes. SS came out as an idea to counter that.

Wish I could remember where I read that, it was an interesting article.
__________________
Gun control: It's like fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober drivers.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-01-2015, 11:29 AM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
There is conspiracy board else where. A life expectancy chart proves absolutely zero.
Use some deductive reasoning, Watson.

If they were smart enough to get elected to Congress, they were smart enough to know the numbers.

With a life expectancy of 60, only half the population lived longer than sixty years. If they wanted to pay out to half the people, they would have picked 60 as retirement age. But they went with a higher age, taking no chances.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-01-2015, 03:13 PM
TnAndy Male TnAndy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena View Post
Again, all of us pay into programs/plans and never collect a dime. Workers comp, insurance of all flavors (the number of people who pay life insurance premiums for decades then lapse the policy would amaze you), unemployment come to mind.
No, we don't all pay into those.

Employers pay them as a cost of doing business, just like electricity and property taxes, and any number of other overhead costs. Neither of them do employees have anything deducted from their pay, unlike SS/Medicare. I'm always amazed at the number of people that do assume this.

As for life insurance, well that would be a personal decision...but if you mean some type of 'cash value' life insurance (whole life, universal life, etc), it was a mistake to have EVER paid a dime into one of those types of life insurance. Term life is the only way to go, and if you don't have a claim (and really, don't we all hope we don't...ahahahaa) (just like house, auto, boat, etc insurance), then I guess you could say it was wasted money.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-01-2015, 07:40 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
Use some deductive reasoning, Watson.

If they were smart enough to get elected to Congress, they were smart enough to know the numbers.

With a life expectancy of 60, only half the population lived longer than sixty years. If they wanted to pay out to half the people, they would have picked 60 as retirement age. But they went with a higher age, taking no chances.
Deductive reasoning is
if A = B and B = C then A = C

all you have have done is string together a bunch of unrelated " IF'S that may or may not be true and not related to each other to support you theory. That is not deductive reasoning.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:10 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
If you start collecting at age 62, you'll get less per month, but you'll get 48 extra checks compared to collecting at age 66 and 96 more checks than if you wait until age 70: by age 85, you will have received the same total amount of money either way. You're gambling on whether or not you live past 85. If you do, you win money. If you don't, you lose money. And you don't get the winnings until you're too old to enjoy it.

To Selena: don't know what got you off on your liberal emotional roller coaster. Who's talking about abortion?

In regards mutual funds: I'm suggesting one of the funds that is tied to the DJIA. One share of the fund buys one share of each of the 30 stocks in the Dow. While the Dow does occasionally drop one stock and pick up another, they do it by set rules, not whims or guesses. The history of the Dow is that it's gained an average of 5.5% per annum since its inception 125 or so yrs ago. If the Dow crashes over the long haul, this country is in big trouble and you will be having more problems than not getting a monthly check: it means the economy has totally failed and we'll be in a true SHTF scenario.

The only part of this solution I haven't thought through completely is the problem all that wealth will cause in terms of inflation. Poverty is relative. Some day the "poor" will only be living on a few $million per year while average income is in $10 Million quantities.
Typical response re: "liberal", so sad you can't deal with today's society. Do some research, legal abortion has been blamed for social security shortage as well as a litany of other "problems".

You can tie your invest with the DJIA all you want - a bear market can and will do a number on the average american's retirement account. Were it not for WWII, the bear market could have lasted far longer than 12 years. Take a look at the DJIA companies over the last 35 years - some no longer exist. Those who have discretionary income are free to invest those dollars as s/he sees fit. Those who are not W-2 employees also have more retirement investment options (pre and post tax). Most working folks have few discretionary dollars and far too may have *zero* retirement options besides social security. Myself I like cash benefit pension - I can take it with me when I leave an employer. Plus I'm not beholden to corporate campaign contributions that allow crap accounting to under fund pensions. Or crap accounting that allowed 'over funded' pensions to be raided (remember the mid/late 80s??). The USPS is in the best shape due to punitive politicians but I am still waiting for the day the voters ask why only the postal service was required to fund at such a high rate.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:19 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
How much money a person earns should not be a factor in receiving or not receiving benifits from a program the person involuntarily contributed to.
The money they are using to play golf could just as easily and honestly be said to come from money they earned not from SS .

If you don't want them to recieve bennies , When they earned more than you then you won't mind if they opt out of the system right ?


Sounds to me like you're mostly upset that some people earn lots of money . And this SS discussion is just an excuse to support a progressive " tax the rich cause they can afford it " more than me.
Let's not forget whose money we' re talking about - theirs fair and square not yours .

IMHO

No
IMHO, yes it should - supplement is the keyword. And just to be clear, I make a lot of money - far higher than the median/average wage. Except for my mortgage, which will be paid off well before I'm 60, I have zero debt. Put two kids through college, pay as you go so no debt for me or my kids. I fully expect to be means tested come the time I collect SS. Besides the fact I think I should, the Millennials are going to make that happen. Boomers (front-end or back-end who really aren't Boomers but another discussion for another day) need to wake up and realized their numbers "strength" is shrinking by the hour. I conservatively estimate 70% of SS recipients would not be affected by means testings. The other 30% will squeal like pigs but have little recourse.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:27 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
IF you want it and have been taxed for it involuntarily have right to to it. Food stamps to SS are apples and oranges . SS is a specific tax for a specific purpose. Food stamps are from General revenue and your representative govt decided for you. Don't like it change the the govt.
Don't be a progressive !



You keep neglecting the point that if a person is " involuntarily" taxed then they have a right to the benifits they paid for . Need is not the issue ,





That is not just private pensions it is all pensions. I am retired civil service and and am fully vested in SS but my SS is reduced substantially. Aren't private pension plans the result of agreements between employee ( or thier Union ) and the employer? Yes . The point is the agreement is voluntary.

But when taxes are taken " involuntarily" the taxed have a right to the Benifits no matter what.
Seriously, I am taxed "Involuntarily" to support states who refuse to fund themselves. And it is a long list. I pay insurance involuntarily too in the form of workers comp and unemployment. I do so love it when states that claim to despise federal deficits and crow that they could "be sovereign" come begging for federal aid when some type of disaster befalls their state. Lest we forget all the tax exempt organizations that benefit from my (and your) tax dollars while nary contributing a penny.

Bottom line - we all contribute to funds from which we never collect.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:32 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
No, SS was a political ploy & scam meant to buy votes with taxpayer money from its inception. Life expectancy in 1936 was less than 60 yrs. http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html Those clever Dems figured they'd collect tax from everybody but only have to pay out to about 40% of people. (Similar argument for Medicare.)

Then penicillin was invented 4 yrs later. So much for that plan.
LMFAO - another person still trying to "right" daddy's fight against FDR. But I will concede that any benefit based on actuarial data should have been adjusted. Or thresholds such as the AMT did not change over time (aka wage changes).

Hell, no medicare, health insurance, or social security would have rid america of butt load of people. Wait - that is the what passes for today's republican parties goal - all sick and poor people die!

And we should all be thanking smokers. Medicare and social security would be in much worse shape without them.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:35 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
Deductive reasoning is
if A = B and B = C then A = C

all you have have done is string together a bunch of unrelated " IF'S that may or may not be true and not related to each other to support you theory. That is not deductive reasoning.
Transitive property and geometry class. I'm with you on this one (write it down, doesn't happen too often lol..)
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-06-2015, 11:05 PM
Bones Bones is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena View Post
LMFAO - another person still trying to "right" daddy's fight against FDR. But I will concede that any benefit based on actuarial data should have been adjusted. Or thresholds such as the AMT did not change over time (aka wage changes).

Hell, no medicare, health insurance, or social security would have rid america of butt load of people. Wait - that is the what passes for today's republican parties goal - all sick and poor people die!

And we should all be thanking smokers. Medicare and social security would be in much worse shape without them.
Not sure how you say they are trying to right daddy's fight.

Fact Life expectancy in 1935 rounded up men 60 women 64. The age at which time social security could be drawn in full was 1965. And you are telling me they were not banking on most people dying before they could draw what they had been forced to participate in? Just a little over half lived to 65 in 1940 they did not expect that by the year 2000 75% of the male population would still be alive by 65.

And they to admit that to keep the ponzi scheme afloat the age should be changed to keep so only 50% could ever expect to draw and then only for a few years.

I would be all for this if they make it voluntary to participate. But not only am I forced to participate the supreme court has even said I have no right to collect if they decide not to give me any. Not even what I put in.
__________________
" I void warranties"
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-07-2015, 12:18 AM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,147
Default

Not even sure what to call all this BS " revisionist historical conspiracy theory" I guess. The idea that "they" thought no one would live long enough to collect is so much BS.


In the 30's the life expectancy of people was low because of infant mortality. BUT in 1937 those that lived to 65 averaged an addition 13 years of life.

To many people cherry picking numbers and misusing them. You all try to try to make sound like everyone died before they 65. Nonesense.

Even in 1940 there were nearly 9 million over 65. And drafters were smart enough to know that after 45 years ( people 20 years old working and contributing
till they are 65) that number would be magnitudes greater.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!

Last edited by MissouriFree; 09-07-2015 at 12:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-05-2015, 08:27 PM
Colorado Female Colorado is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,153
Default

I got my Medicare and Rocky Mountain Med Ins handbooks Sat. .Rocky Mountain I have will come up $9.10 a month. So I have $9.10 month less to live on next year
. Pretty good jump, I think. Looks like benefits and copays the same as was. Couple I have not found yet. I plan to stay with RM. They have been paying my bills good.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-05-2015, 10:22 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Haven't been following this thread, but to clarify some things for you partially educated folks:
-- deductive reasoning: eliminate all impossible explanations, leaving only one possible explanation {rarely achievable in the real world} inductive reasoning: assign plausible values of expectation to the several possible explanations. Re: Congress and their SS plans--very likely they knew less then half the population would live to age 65; less likely that they didn't know the numbers.

-- by definition: life expectancy is the age before which half the people die and half live longer. In 1936 childhood death was more common than now, but still not common enough to appreciably alter life expectancy. There were no antibiotics. People with TB died. Period. No longer true. Death rate from pneumonia was 50%; now it's more like 15%. There were no blood transfusions: death rate from trauma was terribly high. Death from "blood poisoning" was not uncommon. You get the picture. Life expectancy in 1966 when Medicare started was only 67 yrs: coronary by pass was still 15 yrs in the future. All those smokers were dropping dead at 55. Now they have surgery or stenting and live on.

Re: DJIA. I was 22 y/o and just starting med school when the Dow hit 800 for the first time. It's 16,000+ now. A $10,000 investment then would be worth $20Million today. (From age 30 or so on, I was giving SS $10G each yr. What would I, or anybody, be worth today if they had let us keep our contributions? Those Dow stocks that no longer exist: they didn't go broke. They were bought out by bigger Dow companies and the stock holders paid handsomely in the deal.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-06-2015, 12:23 AM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,147
Default

That is not deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.
As explained a=b, b=c therefore a= c.
You SS assumption are not facts and not related process .

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/d...-examples.html

Stringing "theories" and "maybes "" together is not any kind of reasoning - it is revisionist history to fit your political agenda.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!

Last edited by MissouriFree; 10-06-2015 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-06-2015, 05:28 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

-don't know who wrote your dictionary, but they need to go back to school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

I don't let my "political agenda" interfere with the logical solving of problems. Both SS & Obamacare are pretty lousy ways of solving problems of finance as compared to my investment/individual account plan. As I've said before, one could deduce that they aren't trying to solve a problem, but trying to ensure dependency.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.