Those workers currently contribute the 12.4% to Social Security. That same amount would be a required contribution to the IRA instead of SS; so, they are contributing the same amount either way. But the IRA gives them greater income in retirement and money for their heirs.
U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm for Single-Payer
- Thread starter J Craft
- Start date
Those workers currently contribute the 12.4% to Social Security. That same amount would be a required contribution to the IRA instead of SS; so, they are contributing the same amount either way. But the IRA gives them greater income in retirement and money for their heirs.
You know, one of the things the Government did in the 2008/2009 Great Recession was to announce people didn't have to take out RMDs (Required Minimum Distributions). I thought that was pretty generous. Who wants to sell at the bottom of a recession.
"You don’t have to take RMDs from your traditional IRA this year. On December 23, President Bush signed the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 into law, suspending all Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from IRAs, 401(k)s and 403(b)s for 2009."
https://www.whiteoakswealth.com/rmd-not-required-in-2009/
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Some smart doctors are throwing their hands up in the air to traditional Healthcare Providing and getting away from accepting Traditional Healthcare Insurance.
Motivated by their sheer disgust with the politics-as-usual and obstructionists in Washington, and by standing true to their medical oath these doctors are looking to give families and individuals a great choice other than maintaining overpriced or basically unaffordable by the masses- Healthcare Insurance.
So these doctors and clinics have created a flat rate system that covers surgeries and post surgery followups.
They are also working with financiers who are helping patients with short term financing.
These pioneering doctors and clinics are trimming about 2/3rds the costs on many procedures.
I think it is the wave of the future for America.
Motivated by their sheer disgust with the politics-as-usual and obstructionists in Washington, and by standing true to their medical oath these doctors are looking to give families and individuals a great choice other than maintaining overpriced or basically unaffordable by the masses- Healthcare Insurance.
So these doctors and clinics have created a flat rate system that covers surgeries and post surgery followups.
They are also working with financiers who are helping patients with short term financing.
These pioneering doctors and clinics are trimming about 2/3rds the costs on many procedures.
I think it is the wave of the future for America.
Last edited:
The Democrats in general and Schumer / Pelosi in particular would be fools to allow the Republicans to walk all over them, but then cave to Republican whim when the shoe is on the other foot.
But Speaker Gingrich (R) is the architect of this ultra-partisanship. And there's no obvious end in sight.
It is Republicans that have opted to prioritize partisanship ahead of citizenship as their standard.
Candidate Trump promised to drain the swamp. But after two years in office the swamp seems little if any dryer.
This may be one of the things that motivates the predictions of the blue wave.
Way too early to tell which way the U.S. healthcare system is headed.
We'll know more in a week.
I wasn't aware of that. The RMD did not effect me at that time but it does today. I am in the Harvey disaster area and the IRS did have some special provisions for IRA withdrawals but my house had no damage.
I learned learned the more I withdraw from my IRA the higher my Medicare Part B and D taxes.
US has the worst health care of industrialized nations. https://www.internationalinsurance.com/news/ranking-top-eleven-healthcare-systems-country.php
I think the more IRAs are being used by the fairly well-off, the more the Government is looking at it as a possible 'tax revenue'. I have a 'ROTH', supposedly 'tax-free forever', and I notice they are requiring companies to begin tracking your Cost Basis. You know, why would that be any concern of the Government ... unless they had future designs to 'tax' the Gains somehow?
You brought up an interesting point a while back about putting 'Workers' into an Index Fund like the 'S&P 500 Index'. This being done by the Government in place of Social Security. This seems a bit radical. You are proposing to put American Workers as shareholders of the 500 largest American Companies listed on the NYSE.
Now, if you consider 'communism' as the idea to place 'the means of production' into the hands of everyone, that sounds pretty close to that Idea. I've always looked at 'Shareholders' as the real 'Communists', they are the ones that 'own' the means of production (profit making Corporate America), so making this 'ownership' government mandated sounds interesting.
I'm not real sure the Brokers would be real keen on this, or the existing 'Shareholding Class'. I was unaware that you are a Marxist, Flash. Very Impressive.
I disagree about the communism analogy since the businesses would all be privately owned and controlled rather than government control as in communist nations (although Marx saw the government as eventually withering away).
Workers already are shareholders in the S&P 500 plus other smaller businesses. Fewer companies offer pensions today and the workers instead invest in IRAs, 401(k), and 403(b) accounts. Often these contributions are mandatory.
Many object to such a plan as "privatizing SS," but if it benefits the workers, government, and corporations, it is better for all. People warn about the consequences of a stock market crash, but the S&P averages 10% annually and has not lost money in any ten year period beginning with any chosen year. Even a crash would leave a person with more income than SS and the money would return.
I was a teacher and could join teacher retirement system with a pension or contribute the same amount (6.65% from me and 8.5% from the state) to a 403(b). My income is much higher than my colleagues who took the state retirement or the 403(b) with fixed income.
For those afraid of the stock market the plan could invest in government treasuries. Guaranteed safe and the average 5% return on 30 year bonds would still provide more income than SS. That would also help the government because it would not have to purchase on the open market that puts pressure on borrowing and interest rates.
I would think the broker and shareholding class would love it because it is more business and investments. It is not like many shareholders are actually active in company governance.
Last edited:
If you are saying the government would replace (or supplement) SS with a mandatory contribution to the S&P 500 Index Fund (let's say), that strikes me as the Government putting/making American Labor as de facto 'Shareholders'. 'Owners' of the means of production (profit making Corporate America).
That's the typical misconception, most 'workers' DON'T own stocks. 50% of americans don't participate in the Stock Market.
Most people that want to 'privatize' SS, DON'T have the benefit of the Worker at heart.
I have a Teacher friend who said he got penalized for getting a 'Teacher Pension'. Somehow they dinged his Social Security. I'm not that familiar with how much 'choice' you get with 401s, or how these large State Pension Funds are invested.
I don't think your '5% return' on long Treasuries is accurate.
I don't think the Brokers would like the Government taking their business away from them, and I don't think the 'Shareholding Class' would appreciate the 'watering down' of their Investments, cutting into the pie so to speak.
I WOULD support your Plan of mandating a portion of EVERY Workers compensation being invested in a 'Total Stock Market Fund' (about 5,000 American companies listed on the NYSE) as a supplement to their existing SS. That would really make every American a 'Shareholder' in Corporate America and it's economic future.
Most workers might not own stocks but 95 million do--that is a lot of people. If investing in the market (mutual funds) makes more for the worker, relieves the government of its biggest expenditure, and helps investment--that seems like it has the best interest of the worker and everybody else at heart.
The 5% on 30-year treasuries is a long-term average, it has obviously been less in recent years (currently about 3%):
"30 Year Bond Yield in the United States averaged 6.68 percent from 1977 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 15.21 percent in October of 1981 and a record low of 2.11 percent in July of 2016." I couldn't find the average for a longer period of time.
The government would not be taking away the business of brokers. Today IRAs or similar plans all go through investment firms like Fidelity. For shareholders more demand creates higher prices.
Your teacher friend is talking about the "pension offset provision" (or something similar). It applies to those with public pensions such as teachers, city employees, etc. If on their last day of employment they were not paying SS it applies to them and their SS would be lower. Most schools do not pay SS so it hurts people who paid into SS and then went to a public employer. Teachers who retire from schools that did not pay SS could go to work for one day for a school that did pay SS to get around the rule (teachers paid the school $6,000 to let them work in the cafeteria for one day). Congress stopped that loophole. There is a legitimate reason for it but it makes teachers mad.
My school paid SS so I collect it and my IRA RMD. I collected my full SS from age 66-69 before I retired.
Flash: "Most workers might not own stocks but 95 million do--that is a lot of people. If investing in the market (mutual funds) makes more for the worker, relieves the government of its biggest expenditure, and helps investment--that seems like it has the best interest of the worker and everybody else at heart.'
Jack: I would support something along those lines as long as everyone was put in the same 'S&P 500 Index fund' (or similar). I would be suspicious of a myriad of Brokers conning unsuspecting 'hand-to-mouth' Workers out of their hard earned money. I would trust the Government to be an honest broker, not so much with 'Financial Planner' types. I keep hearing stories about people that work in Offices that have a 401(k) being given a shit selection to choose from. It's just lining other people's pockets with money from unknowledgeable people.
Flash: "My school paid SS so I collect it and my IRA RMD. I collected my full SS from age 66-69 before I retired."
Jack: Congratulations, you're now on Easy Street.
That was very true. When I first started in 1973 I knew nothing about investing and signed up with the first (and only) company to contact me. I think the commission was something like 17% (Aetna). Over the years many other providers were available with little or no commission.
I'm sure I made little or no money for many years and could have had a much large 403(b) if I had known what I was doing. My total dropped 40% in 2008 but it eventually came back by the time I retired in 2013. But, even if I retired in 2008 I would have had more income than SS.
That's the problem, the selection could be terrible, along with exorbitant fees that you may or may not be aware of. With your idea of ONE selection, the 'S&P 500 Index', (a well diversified and low cost index fund) the 'bad selection' ingredient wouldn't be there. And if the US Government oversaw the collection and disbursement of Workers monies, that would eliminate the 'charlatans' out their that have a tendency to prey on the ill informed.
There's a Book out there called "How I Sent Two Kids Through College By Investing, ... My Brokers Two Kids", or something like that. It's a Horror Tale of brokers and how they make money when you buy and when you sell, it doesn't matter to them if the Market goes up or down, they just keep making money.
Yeah, I had the same Fun Ride on the 2008/2009 Roller Coaster too. DOW 13,000 ... a year later DOW 6,500.
reagansghost
eternal
HEY CHECK THIS OUT!!
Trump Tantrums After Obama Draws Crowd Four Times Bigger Than His
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/1...fgXK2q47D_oe-dD1Simxyl0AyH0-C7DzttJk6zxDLGcOs
Posted on Fri, Nov 2nd, 2018 by Jason Easley
Trump Tantrums After Obama Draws Crowd Four Times Bigger Than His
Trump fumed at a rally after thousands of people waited in line and showed up to see former President Obama in Florida.
Trump said in West Virginia, “He had a very small crowd, I have to be honest… I had to listen, I was in the plane, I had nothing else to do. And I heard him talk about telling the truth… and yet, 28 times he said you can keep your doctor, if you like your doctor, you can keep your plan, if you like your plan. They were all lies…”
Trump went on to rant about the size of his crowd in Texas when he campaigned for Ted Cruz, which he also exaggerated and lied about.
Trump Tantrums After Obama Draws Crowd Four Times Bigger Than His
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/1...fgXK2q47D_oe-dD1Simxyl0AyH0-C7DzttJk6zxDLGcOs
Posted on Fri, Nov 2nd, 2018 by Jason Easley
Trump Tantrums After Obama Draws Crowd Four Times Bigger Than His
Trump fumed at a rally after thousands of people waited in line and showed up to see former President Obama in Florida.
Trump said in West Virginia, “He had a very small crowd, I have to be honest… I had to listen, I was in the plane, I had nothing else to do. And I heard him talk about telling the truth… and yet, 28 times he said you can keep your doctor, if you like your doctor, you can keep your plan, if you like your plan. They were all lies…”
Trump went on to rant about the size of his crowd in Texas when he campaigned for Ted Cruz, which he also exaggerated and lied about.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm for Single-Payer
Corporate state sure is nervous, the cash cow is being questioned.
Corporate state sure is nervous, the cash cow is being questioned.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
We've all heard the slogans, anything else? A meme? A GIF perhaps? That pretty much exhausts your repertoire.