Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19221  
Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010

http://ftp.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16302 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 4:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't understand the earnings limits. I mean, I understand how they work, just not why they exist. Are they thinking that a person earning more than $14,160 per year doesn't need so many benefits? I bet a lot of people who work after beginning to take SS benefits need them a lot more than folks who receive over $14,160 in interest, dividends and capital gains. And I'm sure that a lot of politicos would love to apply the same limits to investment income, if only it weren't political suicide.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Donna405 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16303 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 6:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So? Those with a higher income must now pay more taxes.

Donna

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Donna405 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16304 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 6:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Once again, I agree with Fleg. Because everyone will be drawing from the system (if it still exists), there should be no income limits.

Donna

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16305 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We've got it easy today. When my father reached 65 in 1968 (full social security age for him) the earnings limit applied until you were 72. He didn't have a lot of income other than earnings and would lose SS if he earned more than, I believe, $6,000. He finally was able to take SS at 72 but died 4 years later.

The earnings restriction really bothered him. He had clients with more in investment income than he ever earned and they were able to take SS without restriction because they had no earned income.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16306 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 7:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The earnings restriction really bothered him. He had clients with more in investment income than he ever earned and they were able to take SS without restriction because they had no earned income.



the tax and SS preference of un-earned income over earned has always bothered me ... even when i was earning income.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUptoten Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16307 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 7:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
fleg: I don't understand the earnings limits. I mean, I understand how they work, just not why they exist. Are they thinking that a person earning more than $14,160 per year doesn't need so many benefits?

I don't understand what you don't understand. I think every $ of early SS should be offset. The original concept was that SS was to encourage older people to get out of the workforce and make room for younger workers. What's wrong with that? It's not a premium for reaching a certain age. I waited until full retirement age, but it still seems wrong for anyone who is working to draw SS. You want SS, quit your job.

Count Uptoten

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DoLoop Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16310 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 9:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm a little confused about something here.

In the linked document, it shows the cost of "Medical Insurance (Part B)" will be $110.50 per month in 2010 (up from $96.40 in 2009).

In a document that I received a couple of months ago (form SSA 4926-SM (1-2010)), they show the this cost to be $96.50. And, based on what I received in January, the $96.50 is what was withheld.

So, are they changing this? If so, when is this change going to take place?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Donna405 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16311 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 9:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know how SS computed the increase. I have a friend who has been receiving SS for 3 years and now has to pay $110.50; however, others are still paying $96.40. Since I signed up in 2009, mine went up to $110.50.

Donna (who is also confused)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16312 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 10:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't know how SS computed the increase. I have a friend who has been receiving SS for 3 years and now has to pay $110.50; however, others are still paying $96.40. Since I signed up in 2009, mine went up to $110.50.



weird. it was my understanding that the $110 was for new entrants to Mcare.

for 'the rest of us', no COLA on SS, no increase on mCare

i'm on mCare for 3 or 4 yrs and paying the $96


...not that that helps />:

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16313 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 10:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I totally agree with you fleg.

The OTHER thing that always po'd me was the earnings cap on FICA contributions. For 2010 the cap is $106,800. The FICA rate is 6.2% and the Medicare rate is 1.45% for a total of 7.65%.

The following is taken from a blog by Floyd Johnson way back in Nov 2005. I adjusted the numbers to reflect the current FICA % rates and caps.

===============================================================================================

What is FICA? In 2010, a 6.2% Social Security tax was imposed on the first $106,800 of everyone's earnings up to a maximum tax deduction of $6622.

Translated into net dollars, that means:

* If you are a computer programmer earning $106,800 a year, you pay the maximum deduction of $6622 in social security taxes. Obviously this translates to 6.2% of the computer programmer's total income.

* But if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet and earn $10,000,000 a year, you also pay only the maximum deduction of $6622 in Social Security taxes. In these two cases, Gates and Buffet pay only 0.0062% (that's 6/1000ths of a percentage point) of their total annual income of $10,000,000 in Social Security taxes. If they were required to pay 6.2% of their total income, Gates and Buffet would make annual contributions to Social Security of $620,000 not the $6622 that they currently only pay.

First disparity. The current social security tax table causes the computer programmer to pay a much higher percentage of his actual annual income in Social Security tax than Gates or Buffet do - 6.2% of his total annual income verses 0.006% of their total annual income. Viewed just in terms of those percentages, the computer programmer pays 103 times more than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet do. (Ultimately, the computer programmer, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will all be entitled to a similar - if not identical - Social Security benefit at age 65 (or whatever the current " normal " retirement age is ... depending on their date of birth.)

Second disparity. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be entitled to receive Social Security benefits at retirement that they clearly do not need. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do not need a `security net' to protect them from living in poverty. Low or no income retirees and their families clearly do!


As I previously stated .... this is from a blog dated November, 2005 and this inequity in the SS System remains the same today.

To top it off ... the retired guy who is trying to maintain a halfway decent lifestyle by working is penalized for any earnings above $14,160 !!!

Thank you my fellow Fools for letting me rant.

Rich (in name only)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Donna405 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16314 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 11:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By the way, the #14,160 is EARNED income. If you own your own company and receive a K-1, that income is not earned income. Capital gains, etc. are not considered earned income.

However, I agree. I receive my first SS check this month, and can earn $14,160 until December (will be 66 11/29). Between Dec. and Jan, I can make up the difference and earn the remainder to $37,000.00.

Donna

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16315 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 11:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
* But if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet and earn $10,000,000 a year, you also pay only the maximum deduction of $6622 in Social Security taxes. In these two cases, Gates and Buffet pay only 0.0062% (that's 6/1000ths of a percentage point) of their total annual income of $10,000,000 in Social Security taxes.

Quibble: only if the 10mill is salary and bonus. for capital gains etc, no FICA. Zero.


First disparity. The current social security tax table causes the computer programmer to pay a much higher percentage of his actual annual income in Social Security tax than Gates or Buffet do - 6.2% of his total annual income verses 0.006% of their total annual income.

qubble #2 -- that just means FICA is a regressive tax.
SOME of us consider that unfair; some don't.

some think regressive/flat is Good Thing



Second disparity. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be entitled to receive Social Security benefits at retirement that they clearly do not need. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do not need a `security net' to protect them from living in poverty. Low or no income retirees and their families clearly do!


as i understand it -the program could only be sold if SS went to everyone ..that it not be means tested. (my Mom always thought there was like a little savings account in DC ..that she deposited to while working /and SS was just withdrawals)


=

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16316 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/11/2010 11:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In the linked document, it shows the cost of "Medical Insurance (Part B)" will be $110.50 per month in 2010 (up from $96.40 in 2009).

In a document that I received a couple of months ago (form SSA 4926-SM (1-2010)), they show the this cost to be $96.50.


There's a provision in the law that if you are receiving SS benefits and having your Medicare B premium withheld from your SS benefit and there's no COLA, you don't have to pay a Part B base premium increase for that year. It was discussed here and a lot in the news when the 2010 numbers were released.

Phil
Rule Your Retirement Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16317 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/12/2010 12:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm one of those who will start Medicare this year and be charged $110. It's not the extra $14 that gripes me. It's that the $15 will compound over the next 20 years to $100 or more above what someone who started Medicare last year is paying.

The House passed legislation to freeze the Part B rate for everyone a few months ago. It went nowhere in the Senate. I doubt very much that there will be any retroactive legislation now to reverse it. Not enough of us got whacked for them to care.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16318 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/12/2010 12:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The OTHER thing that always po'd me was the earnings cap on FICA contributions.

No, this is a good thing because benefits are capped. If Person A makes $106,800 and pays 6.2% of the whole thing, he will get, say, $1,800 per month when he retires (I made that number up just for the sake of this discussion).

If Person B makes $213,600, you want him to pay double what Person A pays and still only collect $1,800 per month when he retires? Person B is already paying a higher percentage of his income in regular income taxes--that should be enough flesh carved out of him.

While SS isn't insurance, taking the cap off would be like making Person B pay double the car insurance premium for the same car that Person A drives simply because Person B earns more.

Taking the cap off is simply a 6.2% tax hike on everyone earning over the maximum. At the end of this year the top federal income tax rate will increase to 39.6% for the highest earners. Add in the 1.45% Medicare tax and up to 11% for state taxes in the worst states and you're beyond taking half of what people earn above a certain point. Throw in that other 6.2% and you'd be close to 60% taxation, not counting sales tax, property tax and others. Too much.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16319 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/12/2010 12:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'm one of those who will start Medicare this year and be charged $110. It's not the extra $14 that gripes me. It's that the $15 will compound over the next 20 years to $100 or more above what someone who started Medicare last year is paying.


will it? or will we catch up on you in a year or so?

i don't know but guessed that if there's a SS COLA for 2011, your mCare will bump to say, 115 and ours will as well (up from 96)



=
.... otherwise --yes, unfair. unlucky birthday.

....... sort of like the unlucky birthday that got me Drafted <g>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16334 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/13/2010 11:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
While SS isn't insurance, taking the cap off would be like making Person B pay double the car insurance premium for the same car that Person A drives simply because Person B earns more.

Ohhhhhh Now I see Fleg, ....so using your logic it's alright then if person A pays 6.2% of their income of $106,800 which is twice the amount of Person B who only earns $53,400. AND THEN person B pays twice the amount that person C pays earning a yearly wage of $26,700 etc etc. Of course I am aware that there may be some disparity in their individual SS benefit payouts. Because that depends on their future earning increases, life expectancy and FRA for each person who may be fortunate to live long enough to collect SS.

So in your opinion everything is okie dokie as long as the fat cats (I mean those who earn more than $1 million) have their contributions capped at $6623/year.

Also, following your logic why then are Medicare contributions not capped?

Fleg, have you ever given thought to .... IF the caps were completely eliminated ... the excess contributions may very well reduce the overall contribution rate required to maybe 1~3% for EVERYONE (Employee & Employer)!

Just food for thought my friend.

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16335 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 1:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Fleg, have you ever given thought to .... IF the caps were completely eliminated ... the excess contributions may very well reduce the overall contribution rate required to maybe 1~3% for EVERYONE (Employee & Employer)!
>>


Dream on, fool.

<<Also, following your logic why then are Medicare contributions not capped?>>



They Congress had a mind to gouge people with high earned income.

At the same time, Medicare benefits are being means tested.

So high income people will pay A LOT more in taxes, pay substantially more for benefits and then often enough probably not depend upon Medicare for benefits anyway.

It's a way for the government to gouge more money from people.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16336 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 1:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So in your opinion everything is okie dokie as long as the fat cats (I mean those who earn more than $1 million) have their contributions capped at $6623/year.

Envy much?

The fat cats (income > $1M) are paying 35% of almost all of their income in income taxes (this will be going up to 39.6% in 2011) while your persons A, B and C are paying somewhere in the vicinity of 18%, 13% and nothing on their income.

How much do you want to take? Why not all of it? Those rich bastards probably stole it, after all.

Also, following your logic why then are Medicare contributions not capped?

It's not my logic. Congress decided to do this. They didn't ask me.

Fleg, have you ever given thought to .... IF the caps were completely eliminated ... the excess contributions may very well reduce the overall contribution rate required to maybe 1~3% for EVERYONE (Employee & Employer)!

Sure. And I thought that if the government just took over every business in America and put the profits in the kitty, it would lower taxes for everyone. OK, no, I didn't think that. I thought that if LBJ and his Democratic congress hadn't started spending the excess SS collections on non-SS things, there would be plenty of money saved up right now to stave off the bankruptcy of SS for years to come.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16337 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 8:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At the same time, Medicare benefits are being means tested.

HUH? Part B premiums are means tested. Warren Buffet gets the same benefits I get.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPixy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16338 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 8:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
HUH? Part B premiums are means tested. Warren Buffet gets the same benefits I get.

True, but due to his annual income most probably at a much higher monthly premium than most folks despite the identical coverage. Thus enters the "means" testing.

The Medicare Part B surcharge is generally levied only on single people whose modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is more than $85,000 or, in the case of married couples, $170,000. These amounts are raised each year. In 2010 the monthly surcharge premium ranges from an extra $44.20 to $243.10 depending on MAGI. See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10161.html for details.

Regards ... Pixy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16339 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 10:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If we want to talk about weird health insurance premium means testing, maybe we should talk about California and 3 other states being cited in news stories. The "crime" some people have committed is not having employer-paid insurance. Since they are a minority of customers, only 800,000 in CA, the insurance companies feel justified in raising premiums 20+% to 39%.

I've been one of those "criminals" for 10 years. Bought my own insurance so I didn't become a welfare case at the emergency room. Watched my premiums triple in 10 years even after more than tripling my out of pocket liability. The good news is I go on Medicare in August. If I were faced with a 39% increase in private insurance I'd be forced to become one of the millions of uninsured.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16340 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There's a provision in the law that if you are receiving SS benefits and having your Medicare B premium withheld from your SS benefit and there's no COLA, you don't have to pay a Part B base premium increase for that year. It was discussed here and a lot in the news when the 2010 numbers were released.


I don't know who that "news" was supposed to appease. My Medicare B went up to $110.50 x 2 which is quite an increase. This was discussed earlier.
Oh well, my late mom would have said paying more is good because it means you are doing well. I will try to convince myself of that. I was looking at her last FIT. Although her investments were half of what I have, she was earning over twice in div/int! That was 1994 and she had some nice rates.

Birgit

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16341 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<If we want to talk about weird health insurance premium means testing, maybe we should talk about California and 3 other states being cited in news stories. The "crime" some people have committed is not having employer-paid insurance. Since they are a minority of customers, only 800,000 in CA, the insurance companies feel justified in raising premiums 20+% to 39%.

I've been one of those "criminals" for 10 years. Bought my own insurance so I didn't become a welfare case at the emergency room. Watched my premiums triple in 10 years even after more than tripling my out of pocket liability. The good news is I go on Medicare in August. If I were faced with a 39% increase in private insurance I'd be forced to become one of the millions of uninsured.
>>



I haven't seen the stories you refer to, although I've seen some about large but routine insurance price increases in the LA Times. I assume your post paragraph is meant to be a frustrated rant rather than a factual description?

I have purchased my own individual insurance since 8/99 --- currently paying $992/month. Unfortunately, medical care is a fast rising cost, in a large part because government subsidizes it and can't find reasonable ways to reign in the amount it pays without being crucified politically.

Don't get too cheerful about Medicare. It's a grossly underfunded program, heading for a financial crackup even before democrats proposed to tap it for $100 billion to fund their health care bill.

I expect that those with income other than Social Security will wind up paying much of the actual cost of providing Medicare ----and Medicare started to be means tested a year or two ago.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16342 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Envy much?

The fat cats (income > $1M) are paying 35% of almost all of their income in income taxes (this will be going up to 39.6% in 2011) while your persons A, B and C are paying somewhere in the vicinity of 18%, 13% and nothing on their income.


Envy? naw .. not really .... maybe just fairness is what I seek.

As far as the 35% of almost all of their income .... absolutely not true!! With all the tax loopholes for the wealthy PLUS Dividends, Interest and Capital gains not subject to FICA tax .... if on average the wealthy pay a net 20% of their total yearly income in taxes that would be the max!

Even Mr Warren Buffett was quoted as saying that his secretary pays more income tax than he does and he also acknowledged that the FICA caps are not fair!!!

How does grab you Fleg?

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16343 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Buffet has also pointed out that he built a multimillion dollar networth when the top income tax rate was 91%. One secret was that he kept reinvesting instead of spending his income on multiple mansions, yachts, and other toys.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16344 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 10:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Even Mr Warren Buffett was quoted as saying that his secretary pays more income tax than he does and he also acknowledged that the FICA caps are not fair!!!
>>


Warren Buffett may love to pay taxes --- I do not.


I retired early at age 57, and a significant part of my motivation was being gouged on income taxes and self employment taxes.

I estimate that will cost the Federal government a minimum of $100,000 in tax revenues over the remainder of my lifetime.


For 2008 I paid $64 in Federal taxes.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16345 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 11:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For 2008 I paid $64 in Federal taxes.

Wow, either you have practically no income, or some mighty huge right offs.

Birgit

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16346 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/14/2010 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For 2008 I paid $64 in Federal taxes.

Wow, either you have practically no income, or some mighty huge right offs.


We're in the same boat for 08 and 09. And it looks like more of the same going forward. With only dividends and interest as income, and with interest rates so low, itemized deductions have taken our taxable income down close to zero. That may change in 2010 since I started collecting SS last month--I'll know when I do estimates for the first quarter. It will definitely change at the end of this year when DW starts taking her SS. And some day we hope to take capital gains again (remember those?), but I've got some losses to carry forward, so owing cap gains taxes may be pushed out an additional year or two.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16347 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/15/2010 2:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One secret was that he kept reinvesting instead of spending his income on multiple mansions, yachts, and other toys.

Good point billjam. Buffett is one smart and shrewd cookie. In fact since the recent split of BRK-B I'm seriously considering investing some of my IRA funds in this conglomerate stock.

Hey Seatle ... I'm glad you only paid $64 in taxes in 2008!!!
Good for you pal. I sincerely hope you enjoy your wealth each and every day and not just take it to your grave.

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16348 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/15/2010 4:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Hey Seatle ... I'm glad you only paid $64 in taxes in 2008!!!
Good for you pal. I sincerely hope you enjoy your wealth each and every day and not just take it to your grave.

Rich
>>



Thank you --- that's very kind.


But frankly, I don't have expensive tastes. I spend a good deal of time as a Boy Scout volunteer, walking and cycling.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16349 of 19221
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE - 2010 Date: 2/15/2010 7:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But frankly, I don't have expensive tastes. I spend a good deal of time as a Boy Scout volunteer, walking and cycling.

Sounds like you have a wonderful life and more importantly enjoying it.

Wishing you a long and healthy life my friend.

Sincerely,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement