Your tax money at work?

[aztecwin]

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=322473

Where does this money come from and who is the genius who thought up the parameters of this program.

[Yoda]

That kind of thing happens whenever you attach too many strings to a federal program instead of letting the locals determine the highest and best use.

That said, it pales in comparison to paying Social Security / Medicare benefits to people who don't need it. Why would somebody making $100,000 a year in retirement need Social Security? Medicare could also be means tested, turning from an almost first dollar program to a catastrophe program for those earning over a certain income level.

If we did those two things, the budget would almost certainly be producing a surplus. Sidewalks to nowhere and similar such programs wouldn't come close.

Yoda out...


.

[aztecwin]

Jul 16, 2011 9:16:41 GMT -8 Yoda said:

That kind of thing happens whenever you attach too many strings to a federal program instead of letting the locals determine the highest and best use.

That said, it pales in comparison to paying Social Security / Medicare benefits to people who don't need it. Why would somebody making $100,000 a year in retirement need Social Security? Medicare could also be means tested, turning from an almost first dollar program to a catastrophe program for those earning over a certain income level.

If we did those two things, the budget would almost certainly be producing a surplus. Sidewalks to nowhere and similar such programs wouldn't come close.

Yoda out...


.

I agree on Social Security. It would be even simpler to just jack up the age a little and take off the cap on earning subject to the tax. Medicare is much more complex and a simple means test would not due. Maybe a means test to determine deductible or something like that.

[Yoda]

Jul 16, 2011 9:55:17 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Jul 16, 2011 9:16:41 GMT -8 Yoda said:

That kind of thing happens whenever you attach too many strings to a federal program instead of letting the locals determine the highest and best use.

That said, it pales in comparison to paying Social Security / Medicare benefits to people who don't need it. Why would somebody making $100,000 a year in retirement need Social Security? Medicare could also be means tested, turning from an almost first dollar program to a catastrophe program for those earning over a certain income level.

If we did those two things, the budget would almost certainly be producing a surplus. Sidewalks to nowhere and similar such programs wouldn't come close.

Yoda out...


.

I agree on Social Security. It would be even simpler to just jack up the age a little and take off the cap on earning subject to the tax. Medicare is much more complex and a simple means test would not due. Maybe a means test to determine deductible or something like that.

I don't much care for jacking up the eligibility age for Social Security because not everybody can work that long. Besides, I'd rather let people retire at the "usual" age than pay the wealthy money that they do not need.

And rather than take off the cap, I'd prefer to see the rate applied to all income -- not just earned income. Of course if you did that, and cut benefits as well, you could probably cut the rate rather drastically, and still be solvent.

As for Medicare, your point is why I was suggesting a catastrophe type cover. So you might have a first dollar program for those making $50,000 or less and then taper off the amount that would be paid for those with an income of more than that. But you reach a point, where it kicks back in as well -- meaning when there is a catastrophe. Something like that which is shown below. (NOTE: I'm not actually proposing these numbers; just trying to demonstrate the concept of making it a catastrophe program.)

~ Income of $50,000 and less -- pays 100%

~ $50,001 to $100,000 -- pays 90% until amount paid by user exceeds 25% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $100,001 to $200,000 -- pays 80% until amount paid by user exceeds 37.5% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $200,001 to $300,000 -- pays 70% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $300,001 to $400,000 -- pays 60% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $400,001 to $1,000,000 -- pays 50% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 -- pays 40% until amount paid by user exceeds 60% of his income, then pays 75%

~ $2,000,001 to $5,000,000 -- pays 20% until amount paid by user exceeds 70% of his income, then pays 50%

~ $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 -- pays nothing until amount paid by user exceeds 80% of his income, then pays 25%

~ $10,000,000 and higher -- pays nothing.

I'm thinking base it on the prior year's taxable income, except for the first year of retirement when the program would pay 100% (as there is no retirement year income to base it on). You'd also need a hardship provision. You may have made a lot of money last year but if it was because Bernie Madoff had your money, or if you lost your shorts this year, there would have to be a way to factor that in.

Finally, you would still have Medicare Supplements available to those who needed to fill in the limit gaps.

I don't think it would be that difficult to do -- except politically.

Yoda out...


.

[azdick]

Jul 16, 2011 9:16:41 GMT -8 Yoda said:

That kind of thing happens whenever you attach too many strings to a federal program instead of letting the locals determine the highest and best use.

That said, it pales in comparison to paying Social Security / Medicare benefits to people who don't need it. Why would somebody making $100,000 a year in retirement need Social Security? Medicare could also be means tested, turning from an almost first dollar program to a catastrophe program for those earning over a certain income level.

If we did those two things, the budget would almost certainly be producing a surplus. Sidewalks to nowhere and similar such programs wouldn't come close.

Yoda out...


.

Medicare Part B IS means tested. I pay the maximum amount for my Part B, which is $200 more than the least amount, based on income.

[aztecwin]

Jul 16, 2011 11:41:57 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 16, 2011 9:55:17 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I agree on Social Security. It would be even simpler to just jack up the age a little and take off the cap on earning subject to the tax. Medicare is much more complex and a simple means test would not due. Maybe a means test to determine deductible or something like that.

I don't much care for jacking up the eligibility age for Social Security because not everybody can work that long. Besides, I'd rather let people retire at the "usual" age than pay the wealthy money that they do not need.

And rather than take off the cap, I'd prefer to see the rate applied to all income -- not just earned income. Of course if you did that, and cut benefits as well, you could probably cut the rate rather drastically, and still be solvent.

As for Medicare, your point is why I was suggesting a catastrophe type cover. So you might have a first dollar program for those making $50,000 or less and then taper off the amount that would be paid for those with an income of more than that. But you reach a point, where it kicks back in as well -- meaning when there is a catastrophe. Something like that which is shown below. (NOTE: I'm not actually proposing these numbers; just trying to demonstrate the concept of making it a catastrophe program.)

~ Income of $50,000 and less -- pays 100%

~ $50,001 to $100,000 -- pays 90% until amount paid by user exceeds 25% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $100,001 to $200,000 -- pays 80% until amount paid by user exceeds 37.5% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $200,001 to $300,000 -- pays 70% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $300,001 to $400,000 -- pays 60% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $400,001 to $1,000,000 -- pays 50% until amount paid by user exceeds 50% of his income, then pays 100%

~ $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 -- pays 40% until amount paid by user exceeds 60% of his income, then pays 75%

~ $2,000,001 to $5,000,000 -- pays 20% until amount paid by user exceeds 70% of his income, then pays 50%

~ $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 -- pays nothing until amount paid by user exceeds 80% of his income, then pays 25%

~ $10,000,000 and higher -- pays nothing.

I'm thinking base it on the prior year's taxable income, except for the first year of retirement when the program would pay 100% (as there is no retirement year income to base it on). You'd also need a hardship provision. You may have made a lot of money last year but if it was because Bernie Madoff had your money, or if you lost your shorts this year, there would have to be a way to factor that in.

Finally, you would still have Medicare Supplements available to those who needed to fill in the limit gaps.

I don't think it would be that difficult to do -- except politically.

Yoda out...


.

Mostly I agree. I don't like the idea of paying on investment income. Might get a little messy. People would go "offshore" more and it might be counterproductive. All in all a good sound post.