Even More Obamacare Follies

[Vol8188]

The CBO..... And ifs and buts were sugar and nuts

Great retort. Both childish and ignorant. Exactly what I expected.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

1. I've already stated I believe social security should be 100% related to what you pay in.

2. Because the government has done a ****ty job with SS doesn't mean should end the program itself. The problem isn't with the program, the program actually works. The problem is with the politicians who rob the program blind. Hold them accountable. Pass legislation to protect social security and vote those who oppose it and want to continue robbing it out of office.

I think the program is working exactly as designed. It is a Ponzi scheme. If it really were a government plan to "help" you in your retirement, why isn't there an opt out option? I could have taken all that money that I have paid in all these years, and bought AAPL at $40/share and made enough to buy an island in the south Pacific. No, this is designed to rob Peter to pay Paul. The problem is that there are not enough workers to sustain the pyramid and it will collapse.

I would opt out tomorrow and you could keep all I have put in if they'd let me.

 

[Ernest T. Vol]

Not at all. You're only taxing the "gains". Thus the term capital gains tax.

The higher the rate, the more someone will avoid the transaction. The result is locked funds that could be used in new ventures, etc. The higher tax crowd never understands the government will increase the tax base and revenue if gains remain unlocked...something they should like but cant stand because of class envy.

 

[DC_Vol]

Yes

Giddy up. I'm in.

 

[TNsnyper20]

Let me ask you this 69.
A professional couple earns $500,000.00. An investor earns $500,000.00. Why should the professional couple have to pay more in taxes than the investor. Both Made the same amount of money.

I am for a flat tax with all income being taxed at the same rate with no deductions or loopholes. That is the only "fair way" to tax.

This. If you're going to go with a flat tax. Then it needs to be across the board on ALL income. No loop holes. No deductions. No exceptions.

 

[Biopsyman]

The best is yet to come.. The govt will means test SS at some point. You will pay in but perhaps not recieve benefits if you have too much weallth.. Notice too much

 

[DC_Vol]

1. I've already stated I believe social security should be 100% related to what you pay in.

2. Because the government has done a ****ty job with SS doesn't mean should end the program itself. The problem isn't with the program, the program actually works. The problem is with the politicians who rob the program blind. Hold them accountable. Pass legislation to protect social security and vote those who oppose it and want to continue robbing it out of office.

Yeah, you were one of the others I was agreeing with. Are you PMSing 100% of the time?

I never said SS should be done away with. Personally, I think there should be an opt out option. It was tried once and was scared out of existence.

What im more surprised by is given what has happened to the SS system, why someone would hand healthcare over to the government. Nobody will hold the SS thieves responsible; they won't for healthcare either.

 

[Biopsyman]

Yeah, you were one of the others I was agreeing with. Are you PMSing 100% of the time?

I never said SS should be done away with. Personally, I think there should be an opt out option. It was tried once and was scared out of existence.

What im more surprised by is given what has happened to the SS system, why someone would hand healthcare over to the government. Nobody will hold the SS thieves responsible; they won't for healthcare either.

Or hand over the retirement future to SS as their primary income

 

[TNsnyper20]

Since we've derailed this thread. I would also like to add that one should have to pay in a minimum of x years of SS tax or a minimum monetary amount before being able to draw out any. This would essentially fix the not paying in part.

 

[McDad]

Yeah, you were one of the others I was agreeing with. Are you PMSing 100% of the time?

I never said SS should be done away with. Personally, I think there should be an opt out option. It was tried once and was scared out of existence.

What im more surprised by is given what has happened to the SS system, why someone would hand healthcare over to the government. Nobody will hold the SS thieves responsible; they won't for healthcare either.

You make a good point. Why would anyone let an entity with an 11% approval rating manage part of your retirement?

 

[McDad]

Since we've derailed this thread. I would also like to add that one should have to pay in a minimum of x years of SS tax or a minimum monetary amount before being able to draw out any. This would essentially fix the not paying in part.

The Fed could mandate a person has to contribute x amount of their annual income but the fed does not have to manage it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Let me ask you this 69.
A professional couple earns $500,000.00. An investor earns $500,000.00.

The difference I see is that the investor risked more than the wage earning couple and he should see some reward for that risk. His risk, allowed other business to buy assets and things like CAPEX on facilities upgrades. He could lose it all in that process whereas they will get a paycheck regardless (unless they lose their job) It's a small difference, but discouraging investment is a bad idea, and a regular rate of taxation would do that to an extent. I agree with you though if it were 10% with no deductions/credits or any carve outs, I am all in, but that is as likely as Hillary coming clean with her emails.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The Fed could mandate a person has to contribute x amount of their annual income but the fed does not have to manage it.

Like manage my own? I'd be all over that too except that the fed doesn't want Americans to save money. It lessens the need for dependence on the government.

 

[DC_Vol]

You make a good point. Why would anyone let an entity with an 11% approval rating manage part of your retirement?

Or the healthcare system. Now you've put your retirement and healthcare decisions in their hands. Don't get it.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Great retort. Both childish and ignorant. Exactly what I expected.

Kinda like the comment...... If Congress would repay .....

Do you not understand that the federal government isn't capable of running any program effectively? The US postal service....fail ...... The VA system.... Fail...... Social Security..... Fail. I get that you're saying "if" they didn't raid it.... But they did..., why?..... Because they're blood sucking leeches pandering to their parasitic base. Both Rs and Ds

 

[Carl Pickens]

The higher the rate, the more someone will avoid the transaction. The result is locked funds that could be used in new ventures, etc. The higher tax crowd never understands the government will increase the tax base and revenue if gains remain unlocked...something they should like but cant stand because of class envy.

Here's some Tylenol.... You'll need it after trying to explain this to him

 

[McDad]

Like manage my own? I'd be all over that too except that the fed doesn't want Americans to save money. It lessens the need for dependence on the government.

If you're so inclined. I'm not. I invest in real estate. If required to put it in another growth asset, I would have it managed.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Yeah, you were one of the others I was agreeing with. Are you PMSing 100% of the time?

I never said SS should be done away with. Personally, I think there should be an opt out option. It was tried once and was scared out of existence.

What im more surprised by is given what has happened to the SS system, why someone would hand healthcare over to the government. Nobody will hold the SS thieves responsible; they won't for healthcare either.

This was my original point. The fed can't find its own ass using both hands

 

[McDad]

Or the healthcare system. Now you've put your retirement and healthcare decisions in their hands. Don't get it.

Brother, I don't either. The last thing I want are politicians who cannot manage the government finances and government healthcare (VA) managing my finances or healthcare.

 

[TNsnyper20]

Kinda like the comment...... If Congress would repay .....

Do you not understand that the federal government isn't capable of running any program effectively? The US postal service....fail ...... The VA system.... Fail...... Social Security..... Fail. I get that you're saying "if" they didn't raid it.... But they did..., why?..... Because they're blood sucking leeches pandering to their parasitic base. Both Rs and Ds

The VA has the potential to be great again. If one area needs to be fixed immediately it's the medical care for our veterans.

Both R and D being blood sucking leaches. I absolutely agree with that. Term limits on anything and everything government.

 

[Carl Pickens]

1. I've already stated I believe social security should be 100% related to what you pay in.

2. Because the government has done a ****ty job with SS doesn't mean should end the program itself. The problem isn't with the program, the program actually works. The problem is with the politicians who rob the program blind. Hold them accountable. Pass legislation to protect social security and vote those who oppose it and want to continue robbing it out of office.

See.... We're in agreement here.... My point is the government sucks at running programs so why would we want a single payer healthcare system?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

If you're so inclined. I'm not. I invest in real estate. If required to put it in another growth asset, I would have it managed.

I mean since we are all dreaming tonight, why shouldn't real estate be an allowable form of saving?

 

[McDad]

I mean since we are all dreaming tonight, why shouldn't real estate be an allowable form of saving?

I agree wholeheartedly. As long as we are dreaming, mandate a fixed % of my income must be invested in real estate. I guarantee I'll beat the snot out of SS ROI.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I agree wholeheartedly. As long as we are dreaming, mandate a fixed % of my income must be invested in real estate. I guarantee I'll beat the snot out of SS ROI.

I know you could! I am too lazy to mess with real estate and all the tenant hassles and whatnot. I have one rental property that is cash flow positive and my renter has been in for 6 years. We love them. They pay on time and are good peeps. My bro in law on the other hand is a slum lord, and always seems stressed out about rent monies. But it is lucrative. I'd rather trade options, but to each his own.

 

[McDad]

I know you could! I am too lazy to mess with real estate and all the tenant hassles and whatnot. I have one rental property that is cash flow positive and my renter has been in for 6 years. We love them. They pay on time and are good peeps. My bro in law on the other hand is a slum lord, and always seems stressed out about rent monies. But it is lucrative. I'd rather trade options, but to each his own.

And you should be able to invest in bonds, mutual funds with a multi decade track record, annuities, etc. We both would do better than SS.