Guest
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 10:52:11 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Thanks for again proving my point.
Thanks for again proving my point.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guest
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:982007b8-c6db-46af-83b4-6751bc7d10a5@googlegroups.com:
Good job of forgetting the insult I pointed out that came from
you. Much less the decided fact that it indicates about you.
You are a pathetic, immature, piss poor excuse for a man.
news:982007b8-c6db-46af-83b4-6751bc7d10a5@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 10:52:11 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:be8dfff7-c4da-4067-9adc-
21975fc6cf6b@googlegroups.com:
Amazing how at the first thing you disagree with, you go from a
rational discussion to name calling.
Fuck you Mr. "must have been watching horror movies" retard.
You are
more insulting than you are apparently aware. That is par for
the course for a false stat spewing jackass like you.
Thanks for again proving my point.
Good job of forgetting the insult I pointed out that came from
you. Much less the decided fact that it indicates about you.
You are a pathetic, immature, piss poor excuse for a man.
Guest
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 3:44:29 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Like K says, you're wrong about everything. The only insult there
is the F you, which you posted. And you just doubled down on it
with another insult. So, thanks again for proving my point.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:982007b8-c6db-46af-83b4-6751bc7d10a5@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 10:52:11 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:be8dfff7-c4da-4067-9adc-
21975fc6cf6b@googlegroups.com:
Amazing how at the first thing you disagree with, you go from a
rational discussion to name calling.
Fuck you Mr. "must have been watching horror movies" retard.
You are
more insulting than you are apparently aware. That is par for
the course for a false stat spewing jackass like you.
Thanks for again proving my point.
Good job of forgetting the insult I pointed out that came from
you. Much less the decided fact that it indicates about you.
You are a pathetic, immature, piss poor excuse for a man.
Like K says, you're wrong about everything. The only insult there
is the F you, which you posted. And you just doubled down on it
with another insult. So, thanks again for proving my point.
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Guest
Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in
news:q9iqc2$896$3@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:
as their record is pretty friggin good thus far.
news:q9iqc2$896$3@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:
Yeah. I do not know why folks are being so hard on Boeing eitherOn 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net
wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4,
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill
taxpayers and even the libs know it. The last great promise,
Obamacare, turned out to be pretty much a dudd. Unless you
think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan where you have a
$7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of
merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
as their record is pretty friggin good thus far.
Guest
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
List all the new programs that the libs running for president want
and the cost, then we can talk.
BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
On 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
List all the new programs that the libs running for president want
and the cost, then we can talk.
BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
Guest
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 12:04:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
That because you've had rather unsatisfactory governments for quite a while
> > > The taxes to pay for all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would > > > kill taxpayers and even the libs know it.
Like krw knows his ideas are always right?
Other advanced industrial economies go in for more "free stuff" than the US does, and it doesn't seem to kill anybody - quite the reverse.
The inadequacies of the US health care system do mean that the country has rather lower life expectancy figures than you'd expect for a rich and advanced industrial country.
It did some useful stuff. Copying the German/Dutch/French systems would have delivered universal health care at two thirds of the price per head of the US system, and even the cheaper British National Health Service delivers better health outcomes than the US system, at half the price per head.
It would be a big list. A better approach would be to note that pretty much everything they have in mind is paid for by taxpayers in Germany, and doesn't seem to have done the Germany economy any harm at all - they export $1.27 trillion dollars worth of goods, while the US - with roughly four times the population exports just $1.58 trillion.
> BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
But they do kill taxpayers, though not nearly as many as they save.
Seat belts have been compulsory everywhere I've lived - you can get fined if you haven't done them up. Airbags aren't optional in new cars.
Anywhere that has universal health care has a government funded-deal to make doctors available. Quite why the US is the only advanced industrial country that doesn't have universal health care isn't all that obvious.
My suspicion is that US employers like having employer paid health insurance as one more way of keeping employees tied to the job. Like a lot of the other peculiar features of the US economy, it probably isn't the optimal solution for the population as a whole.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.
That because you've had rather unsatisfactory governments for quite a while
> > > The taxes to pay for all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would > > > kill taxpayers and even the libs know it.
Like krw knows his ideas are always right?
Other advanced industrial economies go in for more "free stuff" than the US does, and it doesn't seem to kill anybody - quite the reverse.
The inadequacies of the US health care system do mean that the country has rather lower life expectancy figures than you'd expect for a rich and advanced industrial country.
The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
It did some useful stuff. Copying the German/Dutch/French systems would have delivered universal health care at two thirds of the price per head of the US system, and even the cheaper British National Health Service delivers better health outcomes than the US system, at half the price per head.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significantly more than they kill.
List all the new programs that the libs running for presidentit's continental want and the cost, then we can talk.
It would be a big list. A better approach would be to note that pretty much everything they have in mind is paid for by taxpayers in Germany, and doesn't seem to have done the Germany economy any harm at all - they export $1.27 trillion dollars worth of goods, while the US - with roughly four times the population exports just $1.58 trillion.
> BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
But they do kill taxpayers, though not nearly as many as they save.
Seat belts have been compulsory everywhere I've lived - you can get fined if you haven't done them up. Airbags aren't optional in new cars.
Anywhere that has universal health care has a government funded-deal to make doctors available. Quite why the US is the only advanced industrial country that doesn't have universal health care isn't all that obvious.
My suspicion is that US employers like having employer paid health insurance as one more way of keeping employees tied to the job. Like a lot of the other peculiar features of the US economy, it probably isn't the optimal solution for the population as a whole.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
Simon S Aysdie
Guest
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust.
It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.
> And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust.
It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:31:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I don't understand how pay-go, whatever that is, makes it a
bookkeeping trick. Sure, the money coming in has been paying
the benefits going out. But that's how health insurance,
auto insurance, life insurance and
similar works too. It was never presented as anything other
than that. It's always been known that the workers and employers
were paying taxes to pay for the benefits going out. The excess
of what comes in over what gets paid
out went into US treasury securities which are virtually
identical to the other treasuries that trade in the open markets
every day and are valued as among the safest investments in the
world.
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust.
It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.
I don't understand how pay-go, whatever that is, makes it a
bookkeeping trick. Sure, the money coming in has been paying
the benefits going out. But that's how health insurance,
auto insurance, life insurance and
similar works too. It was never presented as anything other
than that. It's always been known that the workers and employers
were paying taxes to pay for the benefits going out. The excess
of what comes in over what gets paid
out went into US treasury securities which are virtually
identical to the other treasuries that trade in the open markets
every day and are valued as among the safest investments in the
world.
S
Simon S Aysdie
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 11:03:57 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> I don't understand...
No kidding. And I'm betting that state of affairs will be more stable than US Securities on the open market.
> I don't understand...
No kidding. And I'm betting that state of affairs will be more stable than US Securities on the open market.
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I see, don't address the points I raised where I politely
addressed your points, edit the whole thing out, make a
snide insult and then move on to imply that US securities
that are traded every day worldwide are not stable. Nice,
and wrong of course.
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 11:03:57 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
I don't understand...
No kidding. And I'm betting that state of affairs will be more stable than US Securities on the open market.
I see, don't address the points I raised where I politely
addressed your points, edit the whole thing out, make a
snide insult and then move on to imply that US securities
that are traded every day worldwide are not stable. Nice,
and wrong of course.
A
amdx
Guest
On 4/22/2019 1:03 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens holding paper.
Mikek
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left inOn Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:31:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust.
It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.
I don't understand how pay-go, whatever that is, makes it a
bookkeeping trick. Sure, the money coming in has been paying
the benefits going out. But that's how health insurance,
auto insurance, life insurance and
similar works too. It was never presented as anything other
than that. It's always been known that the workers and employers
were paying taxes to pay for the benefits going out. The excess
of what comes in over what gets paid
out went into US treasury securities which are virtually
identical to the other treasuries that trade in the open markets
every day and are valued as among the safest investments in the
world.
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens holding paper.
Mikek
D
dcaster@krl.org
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:52:27 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
The real problem is that there is not actually any thing in the trust fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Congress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or reduce SS benefits. I am betting on both. Raising the amount collected from the workers and also decreasing the benefits paid. Very likely not pay any SS funds to those with incomes over some amount. Congress will try to get more money from those with higher incomes, but that will not work. Not enough people with high incomes. And they already tax 85% of the payout to those with incomes over some amount. And also already collect extra for Medicare from those with higher incomes.
Dan
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left in
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens
holding paper.
Mikek
The real problem is that there is not actually any thing in the trust fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Congress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or reduce SS benefits. I am betting on both. Raising the amount collected from the workers and also decreasing the benefits paid. Very likely not pay any SS funds to those with incomes over some amount. Congress will try to get more money from those with higher incomes, but that will not work. Not enough people with high incomes. And they already tax 85% of the payout to those with incomes over some amount. And also already collect extra for Medicare from those with higher incomes.
Dan
A
amdx
Guest
On 4/21/2019 8:18 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.
Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
Mikek
The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations wentOn Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 5:21:52 PM UTC-7, Winfield Hill wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote...
"Massachusetts received 83 cents in federal spending
for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington,
and Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar.
It's very clear who is subsidizing who."
Not so fast there. I have SERIOUSLY looked into this and found
a few things. As far as I can tell that federal money going to
red states includes EARNED SS pensions, highway subsidies and
any upkeep of all federal buildings including military bases.
What's more, on that requirement money, more people retire
to low tax states for obvious reasons. Nobody in their right
fucking mind would retire TO Massachusetts.
Plenty do, for good reasons (better support system, better
health care, kids around, etc.), but OK, point made.
And a bunch of those retirees also have private pensions or
IRAs or whatever and they just love the lower taxes on that.
And like Florida, last i heard there was a $100,000 exemption
on property tax. It was actually cheaper to buy there than
to rent. That was a while back but why would they change and
risk all the consumption tax they collect ?
OK, this is all good to hear, thanks, I feel better already.
--
Thanks,
- Win
An election was held to settle the question of higher or lower taxes: Trump won. If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do - send a check into the Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
Trump didn't mention that he was going to boost the Federal deficit at the same time, which wouldn't have gone down as well with the people who were silly enough to vote for him.
The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
It might be idiotic to want to pay more taxes, but wanting a better-performing government involves giving it the resources to underwrite that performance.
Trying to write off Bernie Sanders because his program involves raising taxes is genuinely idiotic, but our tunnel-vision right-wing nitwits can only see the higher taxes and are blind to the improved services.
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.
Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
Mikek
Some of that would involve making education more accessible, and no right-wing nitwit wants that - it enlarges the population likely to point out that right-wing drivel is irrational and foolish.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Maybe we should start with fixing the existing public school system, that
is totally "accessible", first? Results show that despite having plenty
of money, they are churning out kids that can't read and do math.
Gee, I wonder why? You think it could have anything to do with the
teacher's unions being in bed with the libs? Where you can't fire
incompetent teachers because of tenure? Did you even have tenure in a job?
S
Simon S Aysdie
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:52:27 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
It isn't mere semantics. There isn't $2.5 Trillion in there in the sense assets were invested that a specific property claim can be made (like a private trust). SS is not an "investment." The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragovernmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that debt will come from.... you guessed it: taxpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citizens are not holding paper.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left in
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens holding paper.
It isn't mere semantics. There isn't $2.5 Trillion in there in the sense assets were invested that a specific property claim can be made (like a private trust). SS is not an "investment." The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragovernmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that debt will come from.... you guessed it: taxpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citizens are not holding paper.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
Guest
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 11:24:26 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
There wasn't a lot of vision in the Obamacare legislation - most of it was haggled out with the health insurance companies who had to be bribed to get them to cover more people and to dump the "pre-existing condition" device that let them get shot of expensive customers.
A thousand pages of legislation doesn't really allow anybody to envision exactly how it will work (which is probably why it ended up so voluminous).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 4/21/2019 8:18 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 5:21:52 PM UTC-7, Winfield Hill wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote...
"Massachusetts received 83 cents in federal spending
for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington,
and Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar.
It's very clear who is subsidizing who."
Not so fast there. I have SERIOUSLY looked into this and found
a few things. As far as I can tell that federal money going to
red states includes EARNED SS pensions, highway subsidies and
any upkeep of all federal buildings including military bases.
What's more, on that requirement money, more people retire
to low tax states for obvious reasons. Nobody in their right
fucking mind would retire TO Massachusetts.
Plenty do, for good reasons (better support system, better
health care, kids around, etc.), but OK, point made.
And a bunch of those retirees also have private pensions or
IRAs or whatever and they just love the lower taxes on that.
And like Florida, last i heard there was a $100,000 exemption
on property tax. It was actually cheaper to buy there than
to rent. That was a while back but why would they change and
risk all the consumption tax they collect ?
OK, this is all good to hear, thanks, I feel better already.
--
Thanks,
- Win
An election was held to settle the question of higher or lower taxes: Trump won. If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do - send a check into the Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
Trump didn't mention that he was going to boost the Federal deficit at the same time, which wouldn't have gone down as well with the people who were silly enough to vote for him.
The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
It might be idiotic to want to pay more taxes, but wanting a better-performing government involves giving it the resources to underwrite that performance.
Trying to write off Bernie Sanders because his program involves raising taxes is genuinely idiotic, but our tunnel-vision right-wing nitwits can only see the higher taxes and are blind to the improved services.
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.
Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
There wasn't a lot of vision in the Obamacare legislation - most of it was haggled out with the health insurance companies who had to be bribed to get them to cover more people and to dump the "pre-existing condition" device that let them get shot of expensive customers.
A thousand pages of legislation doesn't really allow anybody to envision exactly how it will work (which is probably why it ended up so voluminous).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-04-22, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
If all you're going to do is spout emotionally charged sound-bites I'll
pass on that.
> BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
Maybe, maybe not, your taxes are still spent to promote them.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/seat-belt-laws
https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/air-bags
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
List all the new programs that the libs running for president want
and the cost, then we can talk.
If all you're going to do is spout emotionally charged sound-bites I'll
pass on that.
> BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
Maybe, maybe not, your taxes are still spent to promote them.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/seat-belt-laws
https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/air-bags
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
That's not true. The SS trust fund is redeeming it's securities
and the treasury issues new ones in the open market as part
of it's normal operations. It's swapping one debt instrument
for another.
> I am betting on both. Raising the amount collected from the workers and also decreasing the benefits paid.
It's true that it will have to be addressed, but there is no
immediate need due to the trust fund being used. Congress
could do nothing and there is sufficient funding to pay all
commitments for 15 years. Sometime during that period,
fixes will be made, just as they have in the past, currently
neither party wants to address it.
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:52:27 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left in
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens
holding paper.
Mikek
The real problem is that there is not actually any thing in the trust fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Congress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or reduce SS benefits.
That's not true. The SS trust fund is redeeming it's securities
and the treasury issues new ones in the open market as part
of it's normal operations. It's swapping one debt instrument
for another.
> I am betting on both. Raising the amount collected from the workers and also decreasing the benefits paid.
It's true that it will have to be addressed, but there is no
immediate need due to the trust fund being used. Congress
could do nothing and there is sufficient funding to pay all
commitments for 15 years. Sometime during that period,
fixes will be made, just as they have in the past, currently
neither party wants to address it.
Guest
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 9:33:00 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Suppose it was a pension fund and that fund invested, as many
do, in US govt securities. Is that not a valid pension fund,
a trust?
>SS is not an "investment."
No serious person ever claimed it was.
The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragovernmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that debt will come from.... you guessed it: taxpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citizens are not holding paper.
And this comes as a surprise to you? Where does the money
to pay the rest of the national debt come from?
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:52:27 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left in
the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will
be about $1 Billion
* yes I'm aware the trust fund is in question, whether it is in
government paper or is in debt to citizens holding paper.
It isn't mere semantics. There isn't $2.5 Trillion in there in the sense assets were invested that a specific property claim can be made (like a private trust).
Suppose it was a pension fund and that fund invested, as many
do, in US govt securities. Is that not a valid pension fund,
a trust?
>SS is not an "investment."
No serious person ever claimed it was.
The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragovernmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that debt will come from.... you guessed it: taxpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citizens are not holding paper.
And this comes as a surprise to you? Where does the money
to pay the rest of the national debt come from?
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
Guest
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:31:12 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
Figures, someone asks how much will that cost and the lib bolts.
Since cars already have seat belts and air bags, why are we spending
money that we don't have on that? Sounds like a good place to cut.
On 2019-04-22, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-04-21, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers.
It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
List all the new programs that the libs running for president want
and the cost, then we can talk.
If all you're going to do is spout emotionally charged sound-bites I'll
pass on that.
Figures, someone asks how much will that cost and the lib bolts.
BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
Maybe, maybe not, your taxes are still spent to promote them.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/seat-belt-laws
https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/air-bags
Since cars already have seat belts and air bags, why are we spending
money that we don't have on that? Sounds like a good place to cut.