[speechlesstx]

In 2041 Social Security will currently only by able to pay out seventy-eight percent, although many of the analyst term this as "broke." I strongly suggest, when possible, anyone not putting money into an IRA do so.[/url]

You betcha. Unfortunately, thanks to about 6 years of significant health expenses for my wife I have been unable to do so. We do have a couple of moderate risk IRA's that have done quite well (I haven't checked this month's statement yet) and one healthy conservative IRA that's just collecting interest. We aren't putting our hopes in SS so we do need to start adding funds to our retirement accounts.

[BABRAM]

You betcha. Unfortunately, thanks to about 6 years of significant health expenses for my wife I have been unable to do so. We do have a couple of moderate risk IRA's that have done quite well (I haven't checked this month's statement yet) and one healthy conservative IRA that's just collecting interest. We aren't putting our hopes in SS so we do need to start adding funds to our retirement accounts.

I feel for your family's burden on the medical expenses. I trust that whatever didn't get picked by the insurance, you were able to deduct to some degree off your taxes. As I recall reading the IRS standard for this years minimum started somewhere between 2.5K and 3.2K in accumulated bills with qualifications, or 7.5 % of your adjusted gross income. You're in spot even more precarious than most, although with the current economics much of the middle class can't save much for the future either.

[Galveston1]

Ex, I know you love to kick Bush, and the SS mess is another excuse to do so, but WAIT, wasn't it the Dems under the leadership of LBJ who STOLE the SS trust fund which had a huge surplus? They then put it into the general fund and promptly spent it on a fool's errand of trying to eliminate poverty. Remember the "Great Scociety"? LBJ ran on a patently communistic philosophy and the people were stupid enough to elect him. You are too selective in your criticisms.

[speechlesstx]

I feel for your family's burden on the medical expenses. I trust that whatever didn't get picked by the insurance, you were able to deduct to some degree off your taxes. As I recall reading the IRS standard for this years minimum started somewhere between 2.5K and 3.2K in accumulated bills with qualifications, or 7.5 % of your adjusted gross income. You're in spot even more precarious than most, although with the current economics much of the middle class can't save much for the future either.

Thanks, Bobby. With all I've paid out of pocket the past few years you'd think I would be all for universal health care ;). Trust me though, I do understand first hand the health care burden. We were able to deduct some this year and last but I'm not sure that's a good thing, lol. I'll put it this way, our house is paid off so we have no mortgage interest to deduct, so with our charitable contributions, medical, sales tax, etc. it just topped the standard deduction. It's a good thing we give because we want to or it might make a guy wonder why he would give when he sees he could have hung on to his money and received the same deduction. That's OK though, a healthy wife and being able to help someone is better than any tax deduction. :)

[N0help4u]

They have been saying social security is going bankrupt since the 60's
Some how it always manages to pull through. At least they quit paying alcohols to have a keg party once a month. Oh well I am just a bystander watching the whole mess and wondering when it is going to go from the downward spiral to the nose dive.

[BABRAM]

With all I've paid out of pocket the past few years you'd think I would be all for universal health care... a healthy wife and being able to help someone is better than any tax deduction. :)

No matter what differences the parties may have on reforming the healthcare system, the bottom line is that our family's health is more important than gold, diamonds, or driving the latest sports car.

our house is paid off so we have no mortgage interest to deduct

Excellent! I've been watching Lou Dobbs commentary on Paulson and housing foreclosures, and on this I think Lou is right on.

[inthebox]

Hello again, tom and George:

See, here's where you loyal Bushies go wrong. Clearly, it DOES take 60 votes in the Senate. With good leadership, and more importantly a good plan, the job could have been accomplished.......

But, of course, Bush didn't start out with a good plan. It would have put the burden of fixing social security on the working class, while his friends, the "have mores", drink Champaign......

Tell me, what's fair about a working man paying 8% of his income for SS, when a "have more" pays only 1% or 2% of their income??? Maybe if they had a plan that was fair, they could have gotten the job done.....

But, nooooo.

Bush's solution wasn't a solution. He really kinda misses what SS is all about. Course, that's not surprising, ifin you never read a book. His plan was no plan - it was a dodge. Let the market decide if you can retire - not the government.

excon

1] Do you know the tax system is "progressive" that is the more income you make the GREATER PERCENTAGE in taxes you will be paying.


2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules

And what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? ;)




2] All these politicians are hypocrites.

- Do they have all their retirement money only in social security or are they investing in the private sector? What are they're portfolios doing?

As a former federal employee , I had the option to invest pre tax money in the private sector, why is it not good enough for the average american to decide what to do with a greater portion of his income rather than have the government decide how to do it more inefficiently?


- Some may want universal healthcare, how many have private sector insurance?

- How many send their kids to private schools?


Yet they all pander by saying we'll tax "the rich" so you can have more entitlements.

Why would the average politician care? They'll be dead or out of office when SS and Medicare collapses.

At least "the dufus in chief," as you put it, had the b.ll.. s to address a political third rail.

[tomder55]

As a former federal employee , I had the option to invest pre tax money in the private sector, why is it not good enough for the average american to decide what to do with a greater portion of his income rather than have the government decide how to do it more inefficiently?

That is an excellent question.

[excon]

Do you know the tax system is "progressive" that is the more income you make the GREATER PERCENTAGE in taxes you will be paying.

And what kind of kool-aid are you drinking?

Hello in:

INCOME tax is progressive. SS Tax is RE-gressive. The rich pay the SAME amount the poor does, making it a much smaller percentage of their income.

Still not drinking that kook-aid.

excon

[tomder55]

Social Security benefits are calculated on the basis of a worker's earnings over their career. However, only the worker's earnings under the maximum taxable amount are used to compute those benefits. So the rich wage earner is getting no additional benefit than any other worker gets from the plan.


Of course if you did increase the cap the smart rich guy knows how to beat that game. All they have to do is control their wages and make up the difference in interest and dividend income.Whereas a wage earner who cannot use these options would be penalized.

Already the tax system encourages wage earners to control their hours of work lest they fall into the alt. min tax bracket. This is not rich people but regular middle class families living in area where it takes more money just to feed and house them . This has a negative impact on the productivity of our economy and it would be worse if you drove more wage earners to stop working those extra hours.

Elimination of the cap would be by far the highest increase in taxes in the country's history . I find you position to hardly be libertarian on this issue.The kicker is that all it would do is increase the pool of money in the general revenue that Congress would I'm sure find more reasons to spend it. There would instead be more IOUs in the "trust fund" that will be coming due in the future and the solvency issue would only be kicked down the road for less than a decade . For the worker the net effect would be an even less return on their contribution.

[tomder55]

just one more thought. If I'm a wage earner making income above the cap then there is a bigger probability that I can take the option of early retirement at the age of 62 and start receiving my benefits. I would have to seriously consider that option over being fleeced by people who think that the SS retirement safety net is a redistribution of wealth tool. That's a potential 5 years of my paying premium income taxes and SS contributions into the system against my beginning to take money out of the system .