Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract fo=
r Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are=
1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That'=
s 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials hav=
e allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the L=
a. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be belo=
w poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sit=
ting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contrib=
uting, productively, to the State, in any way.
I wonder what the stats in other states are.
Sonny
On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>> State, in any way.
>
> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>
> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for most
> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
> it is through Social Security.
>
> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>
>
>
>
That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years.
That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
wages went to SS. Really?
On 04/23/2013 01:42 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mike <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 4/23/2013 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can
>>>>>>> recover
>>>>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>>>>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
>>>> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
>>>> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
>>>> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress.
>>> When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
>>> put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10%
>>> of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, let me first say that like you I don't put money in a mattress and
>> I wouldn't argue against the SS contributions being worth close to $1M
>> after 50 years with compounding.
>>
>> However, I'm not sure we would be considered normal (whatever that is).
>
> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/business/change-in-worth-by-household-category/113/
>
> 18% of all households are in debt (negative net worth).
> 56% of all households have less than 100k in net worth.
>
> I'd argue the close to $1M point, too.
>
> Assuming an annual contribution of 7500 (7.5% of 100k) over 50 years
> at an interest rate of 2% (better than you'll get today with no risk),
> you'd have 647,032.42 if the balance is compounded annually (with
> a total of 375000 in employee contributions).
Except for the brief "tax holiday", you and your employers SS
contributions have been 12.4% of gross.
I invested 10% of gross all during my working career (retired at 55) and
$1M isn't at all out of reason, and I never quite reached the $100K
annual income level. AAMOF, even with withdrawals to make life
comfortable, the balance continues to grow. My kids are both following
the same saving/investing strategy.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
Mike <[email protected]> writes:
>On 4/23/2013 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can
>>>>>> recover
>>>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50
>>>>> years.
>>>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>>>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>>>
>>>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
>>> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
>>> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
>>> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress.
>> When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
>> put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10%
>> of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
>>
>>
>
>Well, let me first say that like you I don't put money in a mattress and
>I wouldn't argue against the SS contributions being worth close to $1M
>after 50 years with compounding.
>
>However, I'm not sure we would be considered normal (whatever that is).
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/business/change-in-worth-by-household-category/113/
18% of all households are in debt (negative net worth).
56% of all households have less than 100k in net worth.
I'd argue the close to $1M point, too.
Assuming an annual contribution of 7500 (7.5% of 100k) over 50 years
at an interest rate of 2% (better than you'll get today with no risk),
you'd have 647,032.42 if the balance is compounded annually (with
a total of 375000 in employee contributions).
A lot of assumptions there, most folks over the past 50 years would
have had annual contributions much less, and while the interest rates
have been historically higher, they'd in no way be even close to $1m.
Now, given that 647,032.42 above. Assming that one were collecting
SS for 20 years after eligibility, and without factoring in COLAs,
you'd have been paid $250,000 (COLA's will raise that) in benefits
exclusive of surviver benefits and dependent benefits assuming $12,500/year.
If one collects for 30 years, one collects the same amount (375000)
that was directly contributed by the employee FICA deductions.
> What mystifies me is that I knew a number of people that made well
>into 6 figures that never saved a dime and somehow thought they would be
>able to live on SS when they retired. I, on the other hand, did not
>expect SS to be around when I retired. It is still around and I'm
>retired, but I can't work up much enthusiasm for trying to live on what
>they are willing to pay.
It's my understanding that SS was never intended to be a sole-source of income.
What pisses me off is Congress' misuse of the SSTF, which should have
been compounding over the last 50 years giving substantial cushion for
future benefits.
scott
On 4/23/2013 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
>> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they
>>>>> have
>>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>>> most
>>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can
>>>>> recover
>>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50
>>>> years.
>>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>>
>>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
>> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
>> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
>> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>>
>>
> I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress.
> When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
> put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10%
> of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
>
>
Well, let me first say that like you I don't put money in a mattress and
I wouldn't argue against the SS contributions being worth close to $1M
after 50 years with compounding.
However, I'm not sure we would be considered normal (whatever that is).
If you can believe the financial rags, an overwhelming percentage of
the population has little or no savings and that seems to cut across all
income levels. By some definitions, that would be considered the norm.
What mystifies me is that I knew a number of people that made well
into 6 figures that never saved a dime and somehow thought they would be
able to live on SS when they retired. I, on the other hand, did not
expect SS to be around when I retired. It is still around and I'm
retired, but I can't work up much enthusiasm for trying to live on what
they are willing to pay.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:01:48 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>Sonny <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract fo=
>>r Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
>>
>>Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are=
>> 1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That'=
>>s 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials hav=
>>e allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
>
>Approximately 1.2 million, most of whom are children under 19.
>
> http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/220/n/20
>
>You may also qualify for Medicaid coverage if you:
>
> Are disabled according to the Social Security Administration\u2019s definition
> Have corrected vision no better than 20/200
> Are a low-income parent of children under age 19
> Are a child under age 19
> Are pregnant
> Have no insurance and need treatment for breast and/or cervical cancer
> Receive Medicare coverage and are low-income
>
>>
>>The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the L=
>>a. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be belo=
>>w poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
>>
>>What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sit=
>>ting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contrib=
>>uting, productively, to the State, in any way.
>
>It's best to get all the facts prior to the rant.
He had the facts and it sickened him as it does me. What makes it
even more sickening is that the above conditions you pointed out
qualifies one to be on Medicade. This is repulsive.
Sonny <[email protected]> writes:
>
>Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract fo=
>r Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
>
>Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are=
> 1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That'=
>s 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials hav=
>e allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
Approximately 1.2 million, most of whom are children under 19.
http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/220/n/20
You may also qualify for Medicaid coverage if you:
Are disabled according to the Social Security Administration\u2019s definition
Have corrected vision no better than 20/200
Are a low-income parent of children under age 19
Are a child under age 19
Are pregnant
Have no insurance and need treatment for breast and/or cervical cancer
Receive Medicare coverage and are low-income
>
>The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the L=
>a. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be belo=
>w poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
>
>What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sit=
>ting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contrib=
>uting, productively, to the State, in any way.
It's best to get all the facts prior to the rant.
On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.
Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for most
people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
it is through Social Security.
You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:17:58 -0700, Sonny wrote:
> What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than
> sitting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't
> contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.
Lots of people who are working at low income jobs qualify for Medicaid.
Recipients are not all unemployed.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>
>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>> most
>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>
>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years.
>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>
>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>
>
> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>
>
I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress.
When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10%
of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
On 4/23/2013 4:56 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 01:42 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Mike <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 4/23/2013 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>>>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>>>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can
>>>>>>>> recover
>>>>>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social
>>>>>>>> democrats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
>>>>> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
>>>>> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
>>>>> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a
>>>> mattress.
>>>> When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
>>>> put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about
>>>> 10%
>>>> of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, let me first say that like you I don't put money in a mattress and
>>> I wouldn't argue against the SS contributions being worth close to $1M
>>> after 50 years with compounding.
>>>
>>> However, I'm not sure we would be considered normal (whatever that is).
>>
>> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/business/change-in-worth-by-household-category/113/
>>
>>
>> 18% of all households are in debt (negative net worth).
>> 56% of all households have less than 100k in net worth.
>>
>> I'd argue the close to $1M point, too.
>>
>> Assuming an annual contribution of 7500 (7.5% of 100k) over 50 years
>> at an interest rate of 2% (better than you'll get today with no risk),
>> you'd have 647,032.42 if the balance is compounded annually (with
>> a total of 375000 in employee contributions).
>
> Except for the brief "tax holiday", you and your employers SS
> contributions have been 12.4% of gross.
>
> I invested 10% of gross all during my working career (retired at 55) and
> $1M isn't at all out of reason, and I never quite reached the $100K
> annual income level. AAMOF, even with withdrawals to make life
> comfortable, the balance continues to grow. My kids are both following
> the same saving/investing strategy.
>
The average growth of stocks is about 9.6% for the last 50 years. There
are two parts to this number growth and dividends.
These statistics are all over the Web, and can be found at any financial
advisor's office
http://www.financialphysics.net/model.html
These numbers held until Sep 28,2008 when pelosi reigned on the housing
loans. In the next 10 days the market lost 30% of its value 11500 to
about 8200. 3 months after obama was took office the market was more
that 50% of its 2007 high and 2000 points lower than the first of the
year or about 6400, Five years later, the market is now just passing
its high in 2007. If the 35 year trend had continued the DOW as a
measure of the market would be about 20000 today, instead it is only
about 66% of that value or 14000,
On 4/22/2013 4:12 PM, Mike M wrote:
> At a quick glance you can tell which states vote blue. I can't be too
> critical though as I'm on Medicare and SS disability. I paid in till
> I was 59 then an old guy lost control of his car and pinned me to the
> back of a boom truck. Having been thru that I can tell you the system
> isn't very effecient.
>
> Mike M
>
Yep, you can! Louisiana is a reddish-purple to red state. It's also a
right-to-work state, which gives employers all the power in
employer/employee negotiations. Sure, you can go to another job, but
that one doesn't pay well, either.
I'm glad you are a bit realistic, though. Sure, there are many
conditions that qualify one for Medicaid (or Medicare or SS disability),
but just ask my wife, who is on Medicare and SS disability, too, if
she'd rather be poor and healthy or disabled and subsidized.
Scritch
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Sonny wrote:
> Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract for Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
>
> Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are 1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That's 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials have allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
>
> The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the La. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be below poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
>
> What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sitting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.
>
> I wonder what the stats in other states are.
>
> Sonny
Here's a breakdown by state:
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/2010/innovation/MedicaidEnrollment.html
AL comes in at 21%
Alabama has similar population numbers and apparently similar
demographics.
basilisk
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>> State, in any way.
>>
>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>
>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for most
>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
>> it is through Social Security.
>>
>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years.
> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>wages went to SS. Really?
Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>> State, in any way.
>>>
>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>
>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for most
>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>
>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years.
>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>> wages went to SS. Really?
>
> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>
As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:04 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:
>> On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:21 -0400, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:
>>>>>> It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the
>>>>>> State, in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have
>>>>> been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social
>>>>> Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social
>>>>> Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for
>>>>> most
>>>>> people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover
>>>>> it is through Social Security.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years.
>>>> That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those
>>>> wages went to SS. Really?
>>>
>>> Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
>>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He
>> said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the
>> wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have
>> said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
>>
>>
>I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress.
>When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have
>put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10%
>of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
>
Your assumption about "most people" is flawed. As demonstrated in
the recent economic crash, a scaringly large percentage of people had
all their money and then some tied up in bigger houses than they
needed, better cars than they needed, and more toys than they needed -
without the cash investments to pay to "rescue" them when the bubble
burst.
As for how much money the "socialist" government of Canada has gotten
from me since 1969 in "pension premiums", it is a total of some 20,500
dollars. I will get 6600 per year when I start drawing at age 65. In
3 years I get back my "investment" and if I live as long as my Dad
did, I'll collect for another 17 years.
I have put away some money on my own as well, and I doubt I'll get 6
times what I put in out of THOSE investments - particularly if the
economy doesn't do REAL well over the next couple years to erase the
recent losses.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Sonny <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract for Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
>
>Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are 1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That's 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials have allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
>
>The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the La. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be below poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
>
>What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sitting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.
>
>I wonder what the stats in other states are.
>
>Sonny
At a quick glance you can tell which states vote blue. I can't be too
critical though as I'm on Medicare and SS disability. I paid in till
I was 59 then an old guy lost control of his car and pinned me to the
back of a boom truck. Having been thru that I can tell you the system
isn't very effecient.
Mike M