The Goat Pen

Wizard:

hello

Hacksaw wrote:All the people who insist on getting their SS, because they've paid into it all these years, should have listened to the many people who warned them all along that it was a scam. They were warned. But they chose to ignore it, because they wanted to believe in a fairytale.

I call the belief in SSI the denial of reality.

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Tick is an idiot IB...always has been...always will be.

The defense of the indefensible by ignoring basic mathematics in an attempt to appeal to the most irresponsible, is a natural reaction of people who think with tender hearts and not with their brains.

>All the people who insist on getting their SS, because they've paid into it all these years, should have listened to the many people who warned them all along that it was a scam.

What about those seniors whose Carribbean cruises are being subsidized by SS?

Dora wrote:>All the people who insist on getting their SS, because they've paid into it all these years, should have listened to the many people who warned them all along that it was a scam.

What about those seniors whose Carribbean cruises are being subsidized by SS?

What about them? They should know better just like YOU should know better. Under-writing cruises was not what SSI was intended for, and you know it. It was a privilege for people who live a long, long lifespan, not a retirement subsidy entitlement for all....

Dora, almost 90% of men run and jump on SSI the minute they hit 62. And why? Not because they need it. Instead, because it is there. If it wasn't there, they would work longer OR they would save more OR both. They don't because they have it set in their mind that they don't have to prepare the way the ant does. And they justify this grasshopper thinking with the same rationale you have used, "...well I've paid into the system my whole life so I am entitled."

I hope that rationale makes you feel better when you grandchildren are paying 48% of their paycheck in taxes to make sure you get your SSI check 20 years from now.

SS needs reform - no sane person would dispute that.

Personally, I like this guy's approach on some reform ideas: "I believe social security can be balanced through measures like encouraging people to invest in personal accounts, changing the retirement age, and calculating benefits for wealthy Americans on the basis of the Consumer Price Index. I'll excuse any individual over 65 years from Social Security taxes as not only would it encourage people to keep working but would also ensure the continued growth of the economy. And I've taken a stand against cutting benefits for low-income Americans, in favor of tying Social Security benefits to prices and also in favor of bringing together various groups to work out a solution to control the rising costs of Medicaid and Mediacare."

But according to IB this guy is in denial of reality, since he plans to continue the program if elected. Maybe he's just being a political opportunist. Apparently this same guy has a healthcare record that's weighing him down...along with something about magic underpants(?)...

bluetick wrote:Health insurers have fantasized about taking over the Medicare market for soooooo long, but it was alway's a fool's dream. Like hitting the powerball, or finding a sunken treasure.

But now we can almost visualize it. To our industry Paul Ryan is Paul Bunyon/Jack Armstrong/Neil Armstrong/Mother Theresa/God. The man will never want for anything ever again. We will finally get to mine the treasure at the far right side of the tables. We know the REAL reason why they're called the golden years. To borrow part of a movie line: "Michael, we'll be bigger than U.S. Steel - x1,000,000." Cha-ching, baby...bang a gong, let's get it on!

And puter was absolutely correct - grandma will not be going over a cliff in her wheelchair. A good wheelchair will have a very tidy buyback...let's just say the grandkids won't be hurting for a new generation game console with all the accoutrements.

Do you work for health insurers?

I do pretty well at reading graphs. I see 2001. Tax cut in early 2001, I see revenue dropping (same thing in 1981 if one goes and looks).

bluetick wrote:SS needs reform - no sane person would dispute that.

Apples and oranges. Your idea of "reform" might not even be in the same ballpark as mine.

bluetick wrote:Personally, I like this guy's approach on some reform ideas: "I believe social security can be balanced through measures like encouraging people to invest in personal accounts, changing the retirement age"

I stopped right there. That is the reform we need. Mitt gets it. I don't know if you do.

When people come to me (in their working years) looking for counsel on how best to prepare for their retirement, I never even mention SSI. Really, monthly income should play a smaller part in retirement than most think. The first thing I say is this, "...how many years left do you have to pay off (all) the home mortgage(s)?" That is the first thing I ask. If they say 20 years, I tell them that they can't even begin to think about retirement for another 20 years unless they want to dump the house (provided they aren't upside-down.) Keep working, square the mortgage. If they want to retire sooner, make larger mortgage payments. Bottom-line, you are not entitled to "retirement" if you still have home mortgages.

If they say that their mortgage is paid off, the next thing I ask them about is car loans and credit card debts. If these still exist, I have them take out a home equity loan, pay off the credit cards and cars (in full) and tell them that they can't buy another car, make another big charge on the credit cards, or retire, until they pay off the home equity loan they just got.

If they say that they have no mortgage, car loans, or credit card debts, I ask about student loans that they might be paying (for their kids.) If they have those, I tell them it is time for them to sit down with their children and insist that their kids pay their own student loans. If their kids CAN'T pay those loans (for whatever reason), have the kids contribute something towards their own loans. If they can pay nothing, nothing at all, then I tell them they can't retire until they pay off all their childrens' student loans.

Once all their debts (that they are obligated to pay) are straightened away (and they don't have any legacy issues like a bankruptcy or adult children living in their home Carte Blanche), it is at that point that we can start looking at their 401Ks, their IRAs, or their pensions (or what-have-you.) If they don't have any of those things (and it always amazes me how many people have no nest eggs) then I tell them that they can't do ANYTHING until they can amass at least $100,000 in an IRA ($200,000 in a 401K if possible.) That usually means another 7 to 10 years of working (depending on how disciplined they are.)

Okay, now they have at least a small nest egg and no debts. You would be amazed just how little money an elderly couple really needs when they aren't paying off debt. I ask them how much they would like to vacation, if they have any kind of free flight benefits, if they like to eat out a lot, those kinds of things. We get down on paper the average monthly costs they will need to pay in order to have all the treats they like to have. The cost for those monthly treats is their new mortgage payment (sort of.) Then comes the ultimate question: "Do you want to sell your house and buy into a 1 bedroom condo/buy a ten year old motor-home/move in with your kids, or rent out your house?"

Their response to that question leads me to a series of other questions they might not have prepared to answer. Bottom-line, retirement is best achieved the moment that 60 year old couple understands that they have no reason keeping a 4-bedroom, 3-bath, house.

Do you work for health insurers?

We are brokers for BC/BS, Cigna, Assurant Health, and United Healthcare.

innocentbystander wrote:Tick,

When I was expanding my office cleaning company, I would talk to prospective clients and they would sometimes ask if I carried any liability insurance. I told them no. And if they insisted upon it then we wouldn't do business. Simple as that. In only two cases (my not carrying insurance) was that a deal breaker.

I wasn't mandated to have it, although it might have made sense for me to carry it since I "owned" something (a business.) I was responsible, so I didn't need it.

Heh. IB, you were the only non-hispanic cleaning company in your city operating without liability insurance. Whatever financial counsel you give...HAS to be taken with a grain of salt based on that one fact alone. And if you're now operating as an uninsured financial planner/advisor...well, um...that would be bad.

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:Tick,

When I was expanding my office cleaning company, I would talk to prospective clients and they would sometimes ask if I carried any liability insurance. I told them no. And if they insisted upon it then we wouldn't do business. Simple as that. In only two cases (my not carrying insurance) was that a deal breaker.

I wasn't mandated to have it, although it might have made sense for me to carry it since I "owned" something (a business.) I was responsible, so I didn't need it.

Heh. IB, you were the only non-hispanic cleaning company in your city operating without liability insurance. Whatever financial counsel you give...HAS to be taken with a grain of salt based on that one fact alone. And if you're now operating as an uninsured financial planner/advisor...well, um...that would be bad.

I take no money from those I counsel. It's just a hobby of mine, not a profession. They could sue me but without paying me, they have no damages. They lose in court. And I don't think you know the first thing about office cleaning, particularly when the business owner does ALL THE WORK himself.

I don't like the term financial planner as too many of them are nothing but salesmen (trying to get people to buy the stocks/mutual funds that pay them the highest commission.) They don't understand what fiduciary responsibility is, or if they did, they certainly don't honor it. They are like mortgage brokers, just salesmen, nothing more.

I have no SEC licensing. I just counsel. To me, doing that is the Christian thing for me to do. And sometimes people don't do anything that I advise them to do. Those that do, have always thanked me later (after they fired their "financial planner".)

This is a big day. We may be witnessing the birth of a whole new PNN doctrine. There are several others (wage earners are lazy leachers while managers are unsung heroes, the rich are more productive and therefore inherently better than the poor, union and government workers are worthless dirtbags, W was a great president, Obama is a foreign-born Muslim atheist, et al).

Now we may have a new one: people who work their whole lives paying into SS and therefore expect to get something back for all they paid into it when they retire, are trying to kill their children.

A great day indeed.

I see, Don IB. You are counseling your people merely as a favor.

However, one day - and that day may never come -you may call on them to do a special service for you.

bluetick wrote:I see, Don IB. You are counseling your people merely as a favor.

As I said, what I am doing is a Christian thing to do. Perhaps you are not a Christian, so you might not get that point.

I expect nothing in return for the counsel I give. No one is going to wake up and find their horse's head in bed with them.

The "horse's head in the bed" thing is so 70's.

Now, you run for mayor of Chicago.

Professor Tiger wrote:Now we may have a new one: people who work their whole lives paying into SS and therefore expect to get something back for all they paid into it when they retire, are trying to kill their children.

A great day indeed.

What exactly are you a professor of, Professor Tiger? Certainly not a professor in any mathematics field.

The "expectation" that you are going to get "something back" is root of the problem. SSI is insurance not entitlement. It was intended to insure people against a long lifespan, not allow them to have a check every month and live for the next 20 years just to reach an average lifespan. If you can't get that, you are not a professor of American history, either.

Raise the age.

I agree we should raise the age.

SSI is insurance.

Incorrect. It's a contracted annuity. You pay into it with the assurance of the US government that you will get a certain amount back, based on your lifetime contribution and the age at which you start collecting.

It's very much like a privately purchased annuity. But if you bought one of those, and the annuity issuer came to you and said, "We can't meet our obligations," you wouldn't shrug your shoulders and walk away peacefully. You'd yell and scream that you made a deal, and the annuity issuer must stand by their contractual obligations. I see no reason why the government issue SS annuity should be any different. If they're about to stiff you, you have every right to yell and scream.

Professor Tiger wrote:I agree we should raise the age.

SSI is insurance.

Incorrect. It's a contracted annuity. You pay into it with the assurance of the US government that you will get a certain amount back, based on your lifetime contribution and the age at which you start collecting.

Our professor needs to go back to college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Sec ... _States%29

wiki wrote:Social Security is a social insurance program that is funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Tax deposits are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

It is insurance. Your "contracted annuity" comments are pure liberal, rhetoric, reframing crap, from someone who doesn't know the first thing about SSI or simply chooses to ignore the history behind it.