MA Medical Insurance without an employer?
Michael Zarlenga
: I know you can probably apply for individual or family coverage directly
: to BCBS, Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts, etc. - but I'm assuming these are
: probably awfully expensive and have spotty coverage. Anyone know any
: details ?
In 1994 I went to HCHP as a walk-in after finding HCHP through
COBRA to be a bit expensive ($190/mo). I got the same coverage
I was getting for $190 through COBRA and my former employer for
$120/mo. (Single male, under 40, non-smoker)
Blue Cross plans cost about $300-$400/mo for a single male, ~40,
non-smoker.
I have UHC right now through COBRA. $252/mo. When the 18 mo.
period ends, I'll probably go to Blue Cross.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Keith D. Campbell
search for "self" "employed" "insurance"
bor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> what are the options in mass. for getting medical
> insurance while unemployed ?
Charles Demas
I buy mine through the Massachusetts Businessman's Association
in Braintree. As a contractor/job-shopper/consultant, I'm
able to get group coverage this way. MBA offers many different
plans and services for the "self employed" or those with small
businesses.
Disclaimer: I am only a customer of MBA.
Chuck Demas
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
tonyp
bor...@hotmail.com wrote
>
> hello,
>
> what are the options in mass. for getting medical insurance while
unemployed ?
> No, it's not affecting me right now; I'd just like to get educated,
> that's all.
The answers I see posted so far seem to treat "unemployed" and
"self-employed" interchangeably. Sometimes, I grant you, there's not much
difference :-)
> I know you can probably apply for individual or family coverage directly
> to BCBS, Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts, etc. - but I'm assuming these are
> probably awfully expensive and have spotty coverage. Anyone know any
> details ?
As a self-employed, 40-something, single smoker, I pay around $200/mo for
HMOBlue, the Blue Cross HMO plan. I'm not sure if that's a good deal or
not, and they have definetely made a profit on me even after paying for a
minor surgery, but I'm sticking with it mostly because I hate the fuss and
bother of shopping around. Whether the plan is available to UNemployed
people, though, I'm not sure.
> One option I came up with was: get catastrophic coverage above a certain
> limit that you can afford. say $5000. In effect, that means you are
> self-insuring upto this limit, whilst you look for work.
Is this a real option in MA, or merely hypothetical? For my own
information, where do you go to buy coverage like that?
-- Tony Prentakis
Mary Malmros
insurance? I've got the medical covered, but the only dental
I found was pretty worthless.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart
for the joys of the multitude"
Lee Rudolph
>What I want to know is, where can a self-employed person get dental
>insurance? I've got the medical covered, but the only dental
>I found was pretty worthless.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm other-employed, and
have pretty decent medical coverage, but the only dental coverage
I can get through my employer is ... pretty worthless.
Lee Rudolph, not naming any names, but start reciting the Greek
alphabet and stop before you get to Epsilon
allen
>
>hello,
>
>what are the options in mass. for getting medical insurance while unemployed ?
>No, it's not affecting me right now; I'd just like to get educated,
>that's all.
It might be impossible to buy high deductable health insurance in this
State. The Legislature tried to phase out high ded plans a year ago. I
don't believe that ins companies will even sell new policies with high
deductable plans.
We have blue cross at 2500 deductable. Per person. Per year. This is
425 for family plan.
We are currently trying to get onto Tuft plan and can only get it by
belonging to either the Chamber of Commerse or Small Business
Association. Tufts and Harvard will not enroll us unless we belong to
a group.
Be advised that the entire medical premium is not fully deductable,
while businesses get theirs fully deducted. The laws are anti small
business person - notice that we pay double the soc sec tax.
A.
Rich Carreiro
> while businesses get theirs fully deducted. The laws are anti small
> business person - notice that we pay double the soc sec tax.
As you darned well should, since you are both the employer and the
employee. I fail to see why an employer should be exempt from having
to pay the employer's share of the payroll taxes merely because said
employer only employs one person.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
allen
<rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
>As you darned well should, since you are both the employer and the
>employee. I fail to see why an employer should be exempt from having
>to pay the employer's share of the payroll taxes merely because said
>employer only employs one person.
Why don't employers hand employees the 7.5. percent that they pay into
soc security directly to the employee?
Just got off the phone with the Comm of Mass Div of Insurance. If you
are self employed in this state - one cannot purchase an hmo medical
ins policy without belonging to a group. And when we get it - of
course we cannot deduct full premiums as businesses do for their
employees.
It is politically incorrect that self insured cannot deduct full
medical premiums as businesses do - thus it makes it even harder to
afford medical coverage. Is the idea that we all forgo coverage and
ride the system and increase rates for all?
I want to thank every elected official for doing this to us.
This state is anti small business. It would be really interesting if
all the small mom and pop businesses just striked.
A.
Rich Carreiro
> On 15 Jun 2001 15:06:16 -0400, Rich Carreiro
> <rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
>
> >As you darned well should, since you are both the employer and the
> >employee. I fail to see why an employer should be exempt from having
> >to pay the employer's share of the payroll taxes merely because said
> >employer only employs one person.
>
> Why don't employers hand employees the 7.5. percent that they pay into
> soc security directly to the employee?
One, because Congress says so. Two, because even if it were paid
to employees, you can bet that the law would be changed so that
employees would have to turn right around and hand that over
to the govt.
And keep in mind that depending on the relative elasticities
of labor supply and demand for a given class of employees,
employees are already paying some to most of the employer's
share in the indirect form of reduced wages (relative to what
their wages would be if the payroll tax didn't exit).
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
allen
<rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
>alle...@mediaone.net (allen) writes:
>
>> On 15 Jun 2001 15:06:16 -0400, Rich Carreiro
>> Why don't employers hand employees the 7.5. percent that they pay into
>> soc security directly to the employee?
>
>One, because Congress says so. Two, because even if it were paid
>to employees, you can bet that the law would be changed so that
>employees would have to turn right around and hand that over
>to the govt.
Three. Maybe working people would see that they actually contribute 15
percent into a soc security fund that might return about 2 percent.
Four. Maybe working people would see how certain employees who work
for the govt have their own plan - thus not contributing to those who
are never able to work. Five. To get aid if one becomes disabled is
damn near impossible.
A.
Michael Zarlenga
:>What I want to know is, where can a self-employed person get dental
That seems to be the best buy but even Delta isn't a
very good deal for people with good teeth. If all I
have done this year are my regular 2 cleanings, I'll
lose money.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
: One, because Congress says so. Two, because even if it were paid
: to employees, you can bet that the law would be changed so that
: employees would have to turn right around and hand that over
: to the govt.
At least then people would KNOW they're paying a whopping
12.4%, not 6.2%, into that bottomless Ponzio scheme.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Rich Carreiro
> At least then people would KNOW they're paying a whopping
> 12.4%, not 6.2%, into that bottomless Ponzio scheme.
That's not necessarily true. You have *no* basis on which to assume
that if the employer's share of SS were suddenly eliminated that the
employee would get every dollar of that 6.2% of gross. It would
depend a great deal on the elasticities of labor supply and demand for
a particular field. I imagine that in some fields the employees would
be able to get all or most of it. But in others, the employers would
pocket all or most of it.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
cba...@att.net
> I buy mine through the Massachusetts Businessman's Association
> in Braintree. As a contractor/job-shopper/consultant, I'm
> able to get group coverage this way. MBA offers many different
> plans and services for the "self employed" or those with small
> businesses.
Are there legal qualifications to become "self employed"?
Charles Demas
AFAIK, an adult can just say that he/she is, and can be a sole
proprietor.
tonyp
Charles Demas <de...@world.std.com> wrote
> <cba...@att.net> wrote:
> >Are there legal qualifications to become "self employed"?
>
> AFAIK, an adult can just say that he/she is, and can be a sole
> proprietor.
I've said it before: the difference between self-employment and
unemployment is often not obvious. Some mortgage lenders, for instance,
have a hard time grasping it. But perhaps we can't blame them any more
than we could blame art critics confronted with a self-declared "artist":
anybody can _call_ himself an artist, but whether he is actually producing
art is a harder question.
I think if all your income is on Schedule C, you are self-employed. But
last year's tax filings are ancient history. If you are collecting
unemployment insurance _this_ year, does that make you an "unemployed
self-employed" worker? Is there even such a category? Can you go down to
the Division of Employment Security office (or whatever they call it these
days) and file a jobless claim on the grounds that you laid yourself off?
There must be rules about that sort of thing. Does anybody know them?
-- Tony Prentakis
allen
<rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> writes:
>
>> At least then people would KNOW they're paying a whopping
>> 12.4%, not 6.2%, into that bottomless Ponzio scheme.
>
> It would depend a great deal on the elasticities of labor supply and demand for
>a particular field. I imagine that in some fields the employees would
>be able to get all or most of it.
Maybe some would rather do their own investing for their futures. If
someone were able to get say 6 percent return on their investment
instead of the "projected" 2 percent on their money... then they would
only have to give one third as much to the "retirement fund". Thus 4
percent into retirement would hand people an 8 percent pay raise. What
a platform to run on for office - "I will give you an 8 percent raise
if you invest for your own future".
I think that we should all be given the option of investing in the
same program that the Federal, State, and City employees have. Being
curious: Does anyone know what retirement plan soc security employees
have?
A.
Charles Demas
If you are incorporated and have paid the state unemployment insurance,
then you should be able to collect.
If you're a sole proprietor, and haven't paid, you have no right to
collect, IMO, but IANAL.
Lee Rudolph
>Can you go down to
>the Division of Employment Security office (or whatever they call it these
>days) and file a jobless claim on the grounds that you laid yourself off?
You can get laid, and you can jerk yourself off, but I don't think
you can lay yourself off.
Lee Rudolph
Adam Kippes
> Being curious: Does anyone know what retirement plan soc security
> employees have?
Do you mean the SSA? Since they are federal employees I would assume
they receive the same as others, i.e., their government pension plus
social security.
<http://www.myfinancialsite.com/calcs/pension_benefits_widowed_single_divorced_index.php>
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
Rich Carreiro
> I think that we should all be given the option of investing in the
> same program that the Federal, State, and City employees have. Being
^^^^^^^
The extravagant federal pension is mostly a thing of the past. All
Federal hires since 1986 are subject to social security taxes, are
part of the FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System) program, a far
less generous program than the prior CSRS (Civil Service Retirement
System) program, and have access to the Thrift Savings Program which
is basically a 401(k).
So most people already have been "given the option of investing
in the same program" that Federal workers are in. Someone else
will have to answer on state and muni workers, since I don't know
how those systems work.
> curious: Does anyone know what retirement plan soc security employees
> have?
Depends if they are pre-86 or post-86 hires. See above.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
Adam Kippes
> You can get laid, and you can jerk yourself off, but I don't think
> you can lay yourself off.
Not even if you are the boss of you?
Michael Zarlenga
Err, PonzI scheme.
And, for a comparison of how big a pit SS is, compared to
a REAL retirement fund
http://www.socialsecurity.org/calc/calculator.html
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
:> At least then people would KNOW they're paying a whopping
:> 12.4%, not 6.2%, into that bottomless Ponzio scheme.
: That's not necessarily true. You have *no* basis on which to assume
: that if the employer's share of SS were suddenly eliminated that the
: employee would get every dollar of that 6.2% of gross. It would
You have no reading ability, sir.
Might be best for you to read replies before you respond.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
tonyp
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote
> : At least then people would KNOW they're paying a whopping
> : 12.4%, not 6.2%, into that bottomless Ponzio scheme.
>
> Err, PonzI scheme.
Mike, if you keep calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, I will keep
asking you why human families are not Ponzi schemes. Through most of
history everywhere, and in most of the world today, people too old to work
have had to rely on the labor of their children for food and other
consumables. We've come this far on a pay-as-you-go system. Why is it a
Ponzi scheme all of a sudden?
-- Tony Prentakis
Xiphias Gladius
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote
>> Err, PonzI scheme.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter!
Because the social security system was based on having a certain number of
workers per person collecting benifits. The way that the numbers worked,
it requires a large number of payers per benificiary. If people tended to
die off within a couple months of starting to collect social security, the
numbers would work well. If the population was always increasing, the
numbers would work out okay.
However, if you have a lot of people who are collecting social security
who live a long time, and you have a flat population rate, the you end up
with a situation in which the ratio of payees to payers is far higher than
the system was designed to handle.
So: why did the family system work throughout history?
Well, there are a number of factors.
1. The older generations were *not* nonproductive members of the
family. They provided childcare and consulting, among other
benifits. While older Americans are not, in general, nonproductive
members of society, the people who are paying for them are not recieving
direct reciprocal benefit in the manner that families have.
2. There were generally more than two children supporting parents. In
this sense, the human family *can* be considered a Ponzi scheme, if you
want to stretch the point. But, because of other factors, two children
*usually* could support two parents. . . .
3. But they didn't usually have to for long: many older people died soon
after retirement. So the children would only have to support one.
4. Direct care costs were lower. Because eldercare was handled in-home --
the grandparents lived with the family -- the increased cost was
incremental. In today's society, elders live more independently than they
did in previous generations: this increases housing costs.
5. Medical costs were lower. Today, we have teh ability to help our
elders live longer, healthier lives -- but doing so requires an ongoing
outflow of resources.
So: why will social security go bankrupt when earlier family structures
didn't?
Because, today, we have fewer workers supporting more elders more
expensively and for a longer period of time, and with less direct
recipricosity to those workers, than ever before.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
Adam Kippes
wrote:
> Why is it a Ponzi scheme all of a sudden?
Who said it isn't? But to the best of my knowledge we are not required
by law to produce children.
cba...@att.net
tonyp wrote:
>
> Charles Demas <de...@world.std.com> wrote
>
> > <cba...@att.net> wrote:
> > >Are there legal qualifications to become "self employed"?
> >
> > AFAIK, an adult can just say that he/she is, and can be a sole
> > proprietor.
>
> I've said it before: the difference between self-employment and
> unemployment is often not obvious. Some mortgage lenders, for instance,
> have a hard time grasping it. But perhaps we can't blame them any more
> than we could blame art critics confronted with a self-declared "artist":
> anybody can _call_ himself an artist, but whether he is actually producing
> art is a harder question.
>
> I think if all your income is on Schedule C, you are self-employed.
The Schedule C statement is interesting. Do you need to report *all*
your income on Schedule C to qualify as self-employed? Can you still be
self-employed, if:
- you own your business, but also work part time for someone else?
- you own your business, but also have capital gain income?
- etc.
Also, since a self-employed can deduct part of his insurance payment,
I'm surprised that IRS does not have a more stringent requirement to be
self-employed.
allen
Kozierok) wrote:
>Your comparison also omits one other key point: SS is not a voluntary
>system; families are. The older generation can't do what they please and
>expect to live off the largesse of the younger. With SS, they
>essentially can.
Well put. The retirees of today are increasing what their kids and
grandkids will pay in future taxes.
Currently there are 3 working people for every retired person. In a
couple of decades there will be 2 working people per retiree. Thus the
tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
workers won't speak up?
A.
Xiphias Gladius
> Currently there are 3 working people for every retired person. In a
> couple of decades there will be 2 working people per retiree. Thus the
> tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
> workers won't speak up?
Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
Instead, President W. has decided to give a tax *cut* *which expires just
before we need all that money.*
So, ten years from now, as a lot of baby boomers retire, having benefited
from the Bush tax cut, those of us still working are going to have to suck
up even more.
Current governmental policy appears to be "screw anyone under fifty."
Michael Zarlenga
:> Err, PonzI scheme.
SS isn't pay as you go, it's rob from the newcomers to pay
the old. Current retirees get back 5-10 times what they
should be getting back based upon their contributions and
the growth of the money.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
: Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
: cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
: Instead, President W. has decided to give a tax *cut* *which expires just
: before we need all that money.*
At the same time he has propsed actually trying to FIX the
looming SS problem by allowing a %age of FICA funds to be
invested in fiduciary vehicles that have historically better
rates of return than the 3-4% the government is paying on
FICA monies.
It's about time someone has proposed a REAL solution, not
just more of the same shoveling money into the same bottom-
less pit.
: So, ten years from now, as a lot of baby boomers retire, having benefited
: from the Bush tax cut, those of us still working are going to have to suck
: up even more.
Not if you've elected to put 20% of your FICA money into a
real retirement vehicle like stocks.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Elisabeth Riba
> : So, ten years from now, as a lot of baby boomers retire, having benefited
> : from the Bush tax cut, those of us still working are going to have to suck
> : up even more.
> Not if you've elected to put 20% of your FICA money into a
> real retirement vehicle like stocks.
Gee, last time I checked my IRA balance (growth mutual fund), it's still
lower than the amount I initially deposited .
Have you been following the market over the last year? Stocks have been
LOSING money?
We're young, so we can let them sit and wait to rise again, but folks
closer to retirement age don't have that margin of error.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
allen
<rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
> Someone else will have to answer on state and muni workers, since I don't know
>how those systems work.
City employees have their own plan here and opt out of soc sec. I
really doubt that any govt worker will want to admit that they are out
of soc sec.
Allen
Ed Foster
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
I set up an Excel spread sheet to figure out how I'd have done had mine
and my "employer's contribution" to Social Security been invested in
simple bonds at various interest rates. Conclusion, at about age 55 I
could be withdrawing what they'll allow me to take at age 62 or later,
but I'd never run out of money.
Ed Foster
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
That's Ponzi.
Ed Foster
Rich Carreiro <rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
Perhaps, but if private industry tried to keep all of it you'd hear a
bigger stink, especially from the politicians, than the present case
where the government makes you think you're only paying 6.2% of our
salary, rather than 12.4.%.
tonyp
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote
> Gee, last time I checked my IRA balance (growth mutual fund), it's still
> lower than the amount I initially deposited .
> Have you been following the market over the last year? Stocks have been
> LOSING money?
> We're young, so we can let them sit and wait to rise again, but folks
> closer to retirement age don't have that margin of error.
I know what you mean, Lis, but even for you, who have a decade's advantage
over the likes of me and Mike, it's later than you think. Every year your
retirement fund doesn't grow, you are losing ground.
Let me try out a bit of arithmetic: suppose that retirements were
entirely privately funded, and let us say that you start working at 20,
work 40 years, and expect to live another 40 in retirement. Every working
year, you sock away a fraction of your earnings. Every retirement year,
you cash in your matured investment of 40 years before. Got it? Your
savings in year 20+n mature into your income for year 60+n.
Now, at about a 7% (over inflation, after tax) rate of growth, money
doubles in about 10 years. It grows 16-fold in 40 years. So if you save
about 6% of your income every working year, you can retire on the same
income you had as a worker, and die broke at age 100.
People like Mike look at that and say "Right! A 7% return is pretty
modest, and 6% is a helluvalot less than FICA takes, so private retirement
funding is obviously the way to go."
What they fail to notice is that an average 7% net return over 80 <sic>
years is a pipe dream. The best way to illustrate that is to ask how you
(or I, or Mike) would cash in our growth mutual funds. We'd have to sell,
in retirement, the shares we were buying while working. Sell them to who?
To younger people who are still working, of course. What price are those
workers willing to pay? Will they pay 16 times what we paid? Not
necessarily. If there are many of us (selling), and few of them (buying)
in a free market, the price is likely to be lower than we expect. The
demographic problem is exactly the same, whether you phrase it as "too few
workers per retiree" or "too few buyers per seller".
If you start playing around with the parameters (retirement age, lifespan,
net return) you can make the model more realistic, but guess what: it
will look a lot like Social Security.
-- Tony Prentakis
Mary Malmros
tonyp <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>
>Charles Demas <de...@world.std.com> wrote
>
>> <cba...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, an adult can just say that he/she is, and can be a sole
>> proprietor.
>
>unemployment is often not obvious. Some mortgage lenders, for instance,
>have a hard time grasping it.
Ain't that the truth. This is one big caution I'd give to people
who are considering self-employment: it makes it more work to
secure loans. It can be done -- I got a mortgage after less than
a year of being self-employed -- but banks like "history", and
if you have been self-employed for a relatively short period of
time, it can be tricky to secure a loan if you can't show other
assets. And the paperwork is worse.
>I think if all your income is on Schedule C, you are self-employed. But
>last year's tax filings are ancient history.
Not on a mortgage application! They use the last two year's tax
filings to establish earnings history. They also want to know about
assets, current earnings level, and rental history, among other
things.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart
for the joys of the multitude"
Adam Kippes
> Currently there are 3 working people for every retired person. In a
> couple of decades there will be 2 working people per retiree. Thus the
> tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
> workers won't speak up?
You are overlooking three factors:
1) We're talking about Mom and Dad here; most SS recipients are, after
all, parents. While most people doubtlessly love their parents they
don't necessarily want them around, either, and the parents probably
agree. It wasn't the present generation of young parents who destroyed
the idea of multi-generational families; it was their parents and
grandparents.
2) That rapidly increasing percentage of our population that is
"elderly", or nearly so, is much more likely to vote than are other
age groups, probably because they have such a huge vested interest in
government. In other words, they have vastly disproportionate- and
growing - political power.
3) As has been pointed out by others, we will all (premature deaths
excepted) be old some day; no one will ever be young again. These
extravagant programs are accepted - indeed, demanded - because
everyone expects to cash in on them. It is also why any conflict
between the needs of children and the wants of elders is being
increasingly decided in favor of those with the most years on them
even if that is self-defeating in the long run; no one is looking at
the long run.
Actually, that last part could possibly qualify as a fourth factor.
There are, I'm sure, others.
Mary Malmros
>
>
>tonyp wrote:
>>
>> Charles Demas <de...@world.std.com> wrote
>>
>> > <cba...@att.net> wrote:
>> > >Are there legal qualifications to become "self employed"?
>> >
>> > AFAIK, an adult can just say that he/she is, and can be a sole
>> > proprietor.
>>
>> I've said it before: the difference between self-employment and
>> unemployment is often not obvious. Some mortgage lenders, for instance,
>> have a hard time grasping it. But perhaps we can't blame them any more
>> than we could blame art critics confronted with a self-declared "artist":
>> anybody can _call_ himself an artist, but whether he is actually producing
>> art is a harder question.
>>
>> I think if all your income is on Schedule C, you are self-employed.
>
>your income on Schedule C to qualify as self-employed? Can you still be
>self-employed, if:
>
>- you own your business, but also work part time for someone else?
>- you own your business, but also have capital gain income?
>- etc.
>
>Also, since a self-employed can deduct part of his insurance payment,
>I'm surprised that IRS does not have a more stringent requirement to be
>self-employed.
The word "self-employed" keeps being bandied about, and honestly,
I am not sure that it has the significance that folks seem to be
attaching to it. If, however, your income situation is as
complex as that listed above (or much more so, like mine),
you'd really be doing yourself a favor by engaging the services
of a good accountant. H&R Block does not count. It will cost
you a few hundred dollars, save you much more than that in time
and torn-out hair, and keep you from running afoul of the IRS.
Adam Kippes
wrote:
> Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
> cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
Is it even legal to transfer general revenue to the SSA?
Besides, government has never saved money; even when social security
runs a surplus, the rest of the government just "borrows" it. And when
a huge amount of money is needed by SS (in a few years) the Treasury
is going to be floating bonds like they've never done before.
> Current governmental policy appears to be "screw anyone under fifty."
Fifty-five is more like it. Get used to it.
Adam Kippes
> What they fail to notice is that an average 7% net return over 80 <sic>
> years is a pipe dream.
In business classes (twenty-five years ago) we were told that the real
rate of return - after inflation and taxes - had averaged three
percent per year since before the Civil War.
> If you start playing around with the parameters (retirement age, lifespan,
> net return) you can make the model more realistic, but guess what: it
> will look a lot like Social Security.
Care to offer a sensible explanation, as opposed to merely declaring
it so? Keeping in mind that Social Security is totally political.
dmeyer...@panix.com
> allen <alle...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
> > workers won't speak up?
>
> Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
> cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
Just out of curiousity, to you and all those others who actually buy
into the myth of a "lock box". What exactly do you think the
government is going to do with the money it "saves"? If we're running
a surplus, they can't buy government bonds. That leaves only the
options of buying bonds of other governments, corporate bonds, or
perhaps equities. I don't like the idea of the government buying
any of those things. Better to give us a tax cut and perhaps to
encourage (in any of a variety of ways) the individuals to save
and invest.
> Current governmental policy appears to be "screw anyone under fifty."
Government policy inevitably will do so. It's run by folks over
fifty, campaigns are paid for by folks over fifty, and folks over
fifty comprise the majority of voters.
You seem surprised.
--d
Please don't use HTML in e-mail. Here's how not to:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1236/nomime.html
Please don't require JavaScript on your web page. Here's why:
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/javascript.html
Xiphias Gladius
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> writes:
>> allen <alle...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> > tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
>> > workers won't speak up?
>>
>> Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
>> cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
> Just out of curiousity, to you and all those others who actually buy
> into the myth of a "lock box". What exactly do you think the
> government is going to do with the money it "saves"?
Hey, if the government was going to dump the concept of social security
*soon*, I'd be fine with that.
However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
they're *not* going to spread the pain out: they're just going to stick me
with it ten years down the line.
[ . . . ]
>> Current governmental policy appears to be "screw anyone under fifty."
> Government policy inevitably will do so. It's run by folks over
> fifty, campaigns are paid for by folks over fifty, and folks over
> fifty comprise the majority of voters.
> You seem surprised.
Only because most of those folks over fifty have kids, and mostly like
their kids okay.
Michael Zarlenga
: However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
: benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
: they're *not* going to spread the pain out: they're just going to stick me
: with it ten years down the line.
Welcome to America! Now bend over.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
tonyp
cba...@att.net wrote
> The Schedule C statement is interesting. Do you need to report *all*
> your income on Schedule C to qualify as self-employed? Can you still be
> self-employed, if:
>
> - you own your business, but also work part time for someone else?
> - you own your business, but also have capital gain income?
> - etc.
In an important sense, we are _all_ self-employed. Whether we retail our
labor to customers, or wholesale it to employers, each of us "works for
himself". But for IRS purposes, the main division seems to be between:
1) people who pay withholdings and have no "costs of doing business", and
2) those who pay estimated taxes and must buy their own materials, tools,
etc.
The latter must file Sched C, and as you say, there are people who fall in
both categories.
> Also, since a self-employed can deduct part of his insurance payment,
> I'm surprised that IRS does not have a more stringent requirement to be
> self-employed.
Well, you don't need IRS permission to be self-employed, but you do need
to obey the tax laws. For instance, if you have both W2 and Sched C
income, you cannot legally take a health insurance deduction if you were
_eligible_ for an employer-provided insurance plan. Other deductions,
like a SEP-IRA, are limited to a percentage of your net profit in Sched C.
In other words, you cannot earn $10K from part-time self-employment and
end up with $20K worth of deductions to apply to your $50K salary income.
The tax laws may be complicated and unfair, but they are not _completely_
illogical.
BTW, capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. are not "earned income" for
many purposes. For instance, you do not pay FICA on them, or get to apply
most deductions against them -- whether you are self-employed or salaried.
-- Tony Prentakis
Adam Kippes
> What exactly do you think the government is going to do with the money
> it "saves"?
The only thing the SSA can do is "lend" the money to other parts of
the federal government; that lock box contains nothing but IOUs for
trillions of dollars.
> Government policy inevitably will do so. It's run by folks over
> fifty, campaigns are paid for by folks over fifty, and folks over
> fifty comprise the majority of voters.
In another post I also forgot to mention that they have the largest
per capita income of all age groups and most of the country's wealth,
i.e., accumulated assets. It's a pretty potent combination.
Adam Kippes
wrote:
> However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
> benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
> they're *not* going to spread the pain out: they're just going to stick me
> with it ten years down the line.
You got that one right, son. Now I want you to get out there, work
hard, and be very productive. After all, you are going to be
supporting me for twenty years before you can collect. Or rather for
twenty years plus however much we raise the bar on you. <g>
Adam Kippes
> If I recall correctly from listening to his attempts to explain this
> during the campaign, this "real solution" is somewhat analagous to using
> a Band-Aid to fix a broken femur.
Any solution proposed by a politician who wishes to stay in office, or
anyone wanting to run for office, will be quite similar. Do they
really have any choice?
Michael Zarlenga
: You got that one right, son. Now I want you to get out there, work
: hard, and be very productive. After all, you are going to be
: supporting me for twenty years before you can collect. Or rather for
: twenty years plus however much we raise the bar on you. <g>
God bless America!
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Xiphias Gladius
I've never been happier to be an unemployed bartender. . . what's 12.6% of
zero, again? :)
Xiphias Gladius
> In article <tis3ut7...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> } At the same time he has propsed actually trying to FIX the
> } looming SS problem by allowing a %age of FICA funds to be
> } invested in fiduciary vehicles that have historically better
> } rates of return than the 3-4% the government is paying on
> } FICA monies.
> }
> } It's about time someone has proposed a REAL solution, not
> } just more of the same shoveling money into the same bottom-
> } less pit.
> If I recall correctly from listening to his attempts to explain this
> during the campaign, this "real solution" is somewhat analagous to using
> a Band-Aid to fix a broken femur.
Not very analagous.
A Band-Aid is unlikely to make a broken femur worse.
tonyp
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote
> Of course, the Constitution has been reduced to toilet paper; the voters
> care only about what they can squeeze from the Federal teat, and the
> politicians are happy to promise whatever they can, regardless of
whether
> it is fair, or reasonable, or consistent with the way the nation should
> be run. So we are left with what is increasingly boiling down to little
> better than mob rule.
>
> Hey, I'm naive.
Well, you sound naive, anyway, bitching and moaning about the judiciary,
the voters, and the politicians, all in one breath as you do. Who do you
_want_ to run the country -- the military?
In one way, I can't take your attitude seriously. People have been
declaring that the US is in irrevocable decline since before the Louisiana
Purchase. In a different way, I take you very seriously. If everybody
actually believed as you claim to do, the country might be in trouble
after all.
Cheer up, Charles. You may be wise and farseeing, but if you're actually
signed up for this "government of the people, by the people, and for the
people" thing, then you have to accept that most political decisions will
be made by selfish and shortsighted people, and we'll still manage to
muddle along somehow.
-- Tony Prentakis
David Chase
> In <zQxX6.1602$iH6.1...@news.shore.net>, Charles M. Kozierok wrote:
> > If I recall correctly from listening to his attempts to explain this
> > during the campaign, this "real solution" is somewhat analagous to using
> > a Band-Aid to fix a broken femur.
> Any solution proposed by a politician who wishes to stay in office, or
> anyone wanting to run for office, will be quite similar. Do they
> really have any choice?
They could try talking to us like adults, just for grins. There's
a basic problem of (given demographics) too many people expecting
to retire while too few are working; no matter how the income is
transferred (whether via kids supporting their parents, or paying
SS taxes to support their parents, or paying income taxes to "pay
back" the SS IOU owed by the general fund, or buying the stocks that the
parents are selling out of their 401-Ks) there's going to be a big
transfer of money. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to
add up to a healthy economy.
David Chase
David Chase
> This means that they're *not* going to spread the pain out:
> they're just going to stick me with it ten years down the line.
You could move to another country.
How's your Spanish?
David Chase
Elisabeth Riba
> Not if you've elected to put 20% of your FICA money into a
> real retirement vehicle like stocks.
Oh, and if this is implemented, what will happen to the economy when all
the Baby Boomers start pulling their money OUT of the stock market at the
same time?
Corporations will already be hurt by losing substantial portions of their
workforce to retirement.
What's going to happen to corporate finances in a massive retirement-based
sell-off?
What will the combination of those two do to the economy?
Adam Kippes
> Oh, and if this is implemented, what will happen to the economy when all
> the Baby Boomers start pulling their money OUT of the stock market at the
> same time?
That is ridiculous - talk about grasping at straws. You are
demonstrating utter ignorance of even the most basic principles of
economics.
When WE take all of that money out we are going to spend it; that is
why we would be selling off the stocks. Younger people, such as you
and Ian, will receive it. You will then, I hope, invest it. You'd
better because you won't be getting anything from whatever might be
left of Social Security by then.
Some other points:
1) It won't all be "pulled out" at the same time. WE are spread over a
generation, remember? The oldest of us will be pushing - if not over -
ninety (those still living) before the youngest can retire.
2) By pulled out you mean the stocks are being sold. Somebody must be
buying, no? It's not like money vanishes as in the Great Depression.
3) Do you really think people are going to sell all of their stocks
all at once if it means massive losses and their own financial ruin?
I think you hit Send too quickly.
Adam Kippes
> They could try talking to us like adults, just for grins.
The grins, unfortunately, would be on the faces of the people seeking
the offices they hold or hope to hold.
> I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to add up to a healthy economy.
You know perfectly well it can't add up to a healthy economy. But
everyone, politicians and public alike, hopes it doesn't implode on
their beat.
I actually think I might collect some money for a few years; I don't
have much hope, though, for Ian, Lis, and others their age.
Adam Kippes
> Well, you sound naive, anyway, bitching and moaning about the judiciary,
> the voters, and the politicians, all in one breath as you do. Who do you
> _want_ to run the country -- the military?
I don't see the judiciary in there although they *are* a big part of
the problem.
> Cheer up, Charles. You may be wise and farseeing, but if you're actually
> signed up for this "government of the people, by the people, and for the
> people" thing, then you have to accept that most political decisions will
> be made by selfish and shortsighted people, and we'll still manage to
> muddle along somehow.
In other words, as always, Tony ain't going to try to debate anything,
much preferring to simply declare himself the winner. Whatever swells
your ego.
By the way, every defunct society in history, which is to say almost
all that have ever existed, has said, "we'll still manage to muddle
along somehow."
They were wrong.
Xiphias Gladius
>> Oh, and if this is implemented, what will happen to the economy when all
>> the Baby Boomers start pulling their money OUT of the stock market at the
>> same time?
> That is ridiculous - talk about grasping at straws. You are
> demonstrating utter ignorance of even the most basic principles of
> economics.
I don't agree.
It's pretty basic economics.
What is a "stock market?" It's a way of being able to buy and sell
ownership of a company in the manner of any other commodity. Therefore,
the stock market gets to follow all the rules of economics that govern
commodities.
One basic rule of the economics that govern commodities is that the more
people who are selling something, the lower the price becomes. This is
why there are diamond and oil cartels which artificially limit the supply
of such things to keep prices high. If lots and lots of people are
simultaneously selling the same thing, the prices drop.
> Some other points:
> 1) It won't all be "pulled out" at the same time. WE are spread over a
> generation, remember? The oldest of us will be pushing - if not over -
> ninety (those still living) before the youngest can retire.
The reason for the increase in the stock market over the past ten years or
so is primarily the increase in mutual funds. Perhaps it will take
another ten years for the stock market to decrease. That's irrelevant to
the point. Whether it takes ten minutes or ten years for the stock prices
to collapse, the collapse will happen. "At the same time" in this context
means, "within a relatively small number of years of each other."
> 2) By pulled out you mean the stocks are being sold. Somebody must be
> buying, no?
For a much lower price.
> It's not like money vanishes as in the Great Depression.
Why not? What was fundamentally different in the Great Depression?
> 3) Do you really think people are going to sell all of their stocks
> all at once if it means massive losses and their own financial ruin?
If the stock prices keep dropping and people believe that it's only going
to get worse? What do you think?
cba...@att.net
From the Self-employed FAQ at the IRS site:
How do you determine if a person is an employee or an independent
contractor?
The determination is complex, but is essentially made by examining the
right to control how, when, and where you perform services. It is not
based on how you are paid, how often you are paid, nor whether you work
part-time or full-time. There is no statutory definition of what an
employee is, but from common law three basic areas have been identified:
behavioral control,
financial control, and
type of relationship.
[snip]
The FAQ points to many publications and forms, but as usual, none answer
the questions in layman's terms.
cba...@att.net
Paying for professional help is not an issue, but finding a *good*
accountant is. The worst scenario is paying for incorrect advice.
Mary Malmros
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>In article <01c0f86b$ebac4a60$7838...@chucktop.cable.rcn.com>,
>tonyp <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>} Well, you sound naive, anyway, bitching and moaning about the judiciary,
>} the voters, and the politicians, all in one breath as you do.
>
>to anyone who closely examines the current situation. And I never mentioned
>the judiciary.
>
>} Who do you
>} _want_ to run the country -- the military?
>
>no idea why you would introduce such a spurious rhetorical question.
I'd think it was pretty obvious. He introduced it because you
were cryin' in your beer about The Way It Is. Military rule is not
the sole alternative, but looking around the world, you'd have to
admit that it's probably the most popular one.
BTW, The Way It Is, as Tony described it, is a system in which a
large group of fallible human beings are allowed to call the shots.
As he pointed out, under such a system, things are generally not
as efficient as is theoretically possible, and you end up taking
a lot of wrong turns and having to backtrack. Depending on your
personality type, that may drive you nutty. But a certain
amount of it is inevitable in any republic or consensus-based
system. People are not all-wise, and they don't always get it right
the first time.
>} In one way, I can't take your attitude seriously. People have been
>} declaring that the US is in irrevocable decline since before the Louisiana
>} Purchase. In a different way, I take you very seriously. If everybody
>} actually believed as you claim to do, the country might be in trouble
>} after all.
>
>How can I take *you* seriously when you don't respond to the issues I raised,
>and instead insult me with straw man arguments and patronizing comments?
IMO, he didn't insult you at all, despite your volumes of
"j'accuse!". It sounds like you're suffering from
offensensitivity. Just because he doesn't agree with you
100%, doesn't mean he's trying to pick a fight with you, and
certainly doesn't mean he's attacking you.
Xiphias Gladius
> I actually think I might collect some money for a few years; I don't
> have much hope, though, for Ian, Lis, and others their age.
Neither do I.
And, strangely, that doesn't bother me all that much, it itself.
I just wish that we, as a culture, could sit down and say, "Okay, this
system is failing for these reasons. It looks like the brunt of the
problem is going to hit people who are now, umm, let's say 15 to 35. Here
are some things that we can do to make it hit less hard: it's still going
to hit and they're going to get screwed, but here's some K-Y jelly."
I *know* that any reasonable solution means that my generation doesn't
get any benefit. I *also* know that keeping my parents' and grandparents'
generations from starving means that my generation has to still pay into
the system. I don't want to continue an unworkable system; I also don't
want to make my parents' and grandparents' generations starve, so I *know*
it's going to hurt. But if we sit down and think it out, we can at least
control some of it. The current policy of handwaving and denial is
designed to ignore the problem as long as possible (or longer. . . ), and
therefore, when the system comes crashing down, make the situation that
much worse.
I suppose it's theoretically possible to stretch this stuff out long
enough to not hit me (although I don't see how) -- but, even if we did,
that would just mean that we were hitting our kids with it. And, hell,
that's *worse*. We've got a responsibility to future generations to leave
the country in as good or better shape than we found it.
In any case, it's not likely that I won't get hit by the collapse. The
most optimistic pie-in-the-sky plans claim that they can (by creative
accounting and ignoring reality) fund Social Security all the way to 2035.
I'll be 61, then. My wife will be 65.
I wish we were a country that was able to elect politicians willing to
talk about what we need to do, rather than what people would like to hear.
Ed Foster
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> allen <alle...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Currently there are 3 working people for every retired person. In a
> > couple of decades there will be 2 working people per retiree. Thus the
> > tax rate will have to increase accordingly. Are we to think that the
> > workers won't speak up?
>
> Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
> cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
>
> Instead, President W. has decided to give a tax *cut* *which expires just
> before we need all that money.*
>
> So, ten years from now, as a lot of baby boomers retire, having benefited
> from the Bush tax cut, those of us still working are going to have to suck
> up even more.
Let me extend my thanks to you for that. :-)
Michael Zarlenga
: } just more of the same shoveling money into the same bottom-
: } less pit.
: If I recall correctly from listening to his attempts to explain this
: during the campaign, this "real solution" is somewhat analagous to using
: a Band-Aid to fix a broken femur.
Compared to the typical "let's just break the femur in another
spot" solution of the Dems, who just love pouring more money
into the same problem without even trying to address the fun-
damental flaws, I much prefer a band-aid to another break.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
:> Not if you've elected to put 20% of your FICA money into a
:> real retirement vehicle like stocks.
: Oh, and if this is implemented, what will happen to the economy when all
: the Baby Boomers start pulling their money OUT of the stock market at the
: same time?
The same thing that happens when institutions decide to do
the same thing. You get a temporary decline in stock prices.
Big whoop.
: What will the combination of those two do to the economy?
You tell me. I'd like to hear your forecast.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
allen
Kozierok) wrote:
>In article <tis3ut7...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>} Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>} : Worse: we could be using current tax revenues to try to build some sort of
>} : cushion to make it hurt less in a decade or so.
>}
>} : Instead, President W. has decided to give a tax *cut* *which expires just
>} : before we need all that money.*
>}
>} At the same time he has propsed actually trying to FIX the
>} looming SS problem by allowing a %age of FICA funds to be
>} invested in fiduciary vehicles that have historically better
>} rates of return than the 3-4% the government is paying on
>} FICA monies.
>}
>} It's about time someone has proposed a REAL solution, not
>} just more of the same shoveling money into the same bottom-
>} less pit.
>
>If I recall correctly from listening to his attempts to explain this
>during the campaign, this "real solution" is somewhat analagous to using
>a Band-Aid to fix a broken femur.
I found it interesting that Gore about a year ago was against letting
soc sec invest 1/6th in stocks when he got permission to invest govt
retiree money in stocks and bonds a few years earlier.
Why aren't soc sec contributees allowed to invest in the same program
that fed employees have? Is someone hiding something? Are govt
retirement payments non taxable or something?
A.
Mary Malmros
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>Mary Malmros <mal...@nautilus.shore.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>} IMO, he didn't insult you at all, despite your volumes of
>} "j'accuse!". It sounds like you're suffering from
>} offensensitivity.
>
>real issue, and he replied with a patronizing "there, there" and a bunch
>of straw man arguments.
>
>If you disagree, that doesn't surprise me, since you use similar
>"techniques" yourself on a regular basis.
Yup. I was right. Advanced case of offensensitivity.
You'll be happier if you can accept that not everyone who disagrees with
you is trying to attack you, and if you can refrain from the ad hominems,
but I think that's a long way off.
Michael Zarlenga
: Yup. I was right. Advanced case of offensensitivity.
: You'll be happier if you can accept that not everyone who disagrees with
: you is trying to attack you, and if you can refrain from the ad hominems,
: but I think that's a long way off.
How odd that you speak of refraining of ad hominems after
engaging in two gratuitous ones yourself.
Can the Mary pot see the Malmros kettle?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Mary Malmros
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>Mary Malmros <mal...@nautilus.shore.net> wrote:
>} >If you disagree, that doesn't surprise me, since you use similar
>} >"techniques" yourself on a regular basis.
>}
>} Yup. I was right. Advanced case of offensensitivity.
>
I could just as easily say that you just proved mine ;-)
>} You'll be happier if you can accept that not everyone who disagrees with
>} you is trying to attack you, and if you can refrain from the ad hominems,
>} but I think that's a long way off.
>
>I think a perusal of this thread will make rather clear who started with
>the ad hominems. I was attempting to discuss social security; Tony
>and you have not. In fact, all you seem to be interested in discussing
>is me, making your comments just above rather difficult to comprehend.
Au contraire; if "all [I] seem to be interested in discussing" is you,
then what's so "difficult to comprehend" about the comments above?
In any case, we disagree. You can choose not to believe this,
but I am not and was not trying to put you down. I just saw you
getting upset over something that IMO was not intended as an
attack on you. You've responded to me with a whole lot of
gratuitous antagonism and unwarranted viciousness, but you know what?
That's something that you have to live with and I don't have to
listen to.
Bye bye, now,
dmeyer...@panix.com
> In ne.general dmeyer...@panix.com wrote:
> > Just out of curiousity, to you and all those others who actually buy
> > into the myth of a "lock box". What exactly do you think the
> > government is going to do with the money it "saves"?
>
> Hey, if the government was going to dump the concept of social security
> *soon*, I'd be fine with that.
Nobody's answered my question. One person pointed out that at
present, as SS runs a surplus, the excess is used to buy government
bonds - ie. to lend to the federal government for other stuff.
However, again, that doesn't address the problem - if the federal
government is running a surplus, it doesn't need to borrow any more
either from the public, nor from the SS surplus ("trust fund").
Of course, while there's still debt to the public outstanding (ie.
treasury bonds), the government can continue to retire that debt
while borrowing more from SS, but there's no way that the government
could (or should) borrow so much that the entire fictional "lock box"
of "savings" for future SS can be invested in treasury securities.
So the question still stands - if SS is going to go from pay as you
go to being fully funded via current savings, where exactly do you
folks think that savings is going to go? One cannot save without
putting the savings away somewhere.
> However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
> benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
Nope, but there's really no excuse for them not putting in place
means-tests and raising the age at which benefits become available.
Moreover, bear in mind that eventually, all those money which has
been "saved" in the SS surplus trust fund is money which has been
borrowed by the federal government and which will eventually have
to be paid back via collections from general revenues. SS should
probably never run a surplus at all, and probably ought to be funded
directly out of general revenues, and put on the table along with
every other federal program. The current set up perpetuates several
very clever (from a PR point of view) fictions, amongst them, such
absurdities as "savings" distinct from future federal taxation,
"ownership" or a right to future benefits, and a notion that SS is
somehow separate from the rest of government revenues. Even if the
SS trust fund were spent down to nothing and current collections
are insufficient to pay current benefits, those benefits would not
be cut off. They'd simply be paid out of general revenues and
federal borrowings, just the same as any other federal program.
--d
Please don't use HTML in e-mail. Here's how not to:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1236/nomime.html
Please don't require JavaScript on your web page. Here's why:
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/javascript.html
Elisabeth Riba
> I found it interesting that Gore about a year ago was against letting
> soc sec invest 1/6th in stocks when he got permission to invest govt
> retiree money in stocks and bonds a few years earlier.
> Why aren't soc sec contributees allowed to invest in the same program
> that fed employees have? Is someone hiding something? Are govt
> retirement payments non taxable or something?
Don't know the details, but (many) private employees have 401(k) plans.
I don't think gov't employees have 401(k), but this could be an attempted
equivalent.
dmeyer...@panix.com
> In any case, it's not likely that I won't get hit by the collapse. The
> most optimistic pie-in-the-sky plans claim that they can (by creative
> accounting and ignoring reality) fund Social Security all the way to 2035.
>
> I'll be 61, then. My wife will be 65.
Bear in mind that 2035 was the projected (one of several, actually,
all of which rest on piles of assumptions high enough to reach the
moon) date at which the SS trust fund will be empty. Note several
important things about that date. One, it's not the date at which
the SS system starts paying out more than it collects in. The date
at which it starts running current deficits is projected to be in
about 10 or 12 years. Then, since the system is no longer running
a current surplus, it needs to start "spending down the trust fund".
That means that at that point, it starts getting paid back by the
rest of the government and _general_ taxes start bearing the burden.
Second, even in 2035, once the trust fund is empty, note that the
system is still projected to be taking in a huge amount of money,
all of which would be immediately shipped back out to beneficiaries.
That sum is expected to be, IIRC, approx 2/3 of the amount that those
beneficiaries have been promised. Payments will continue at that
point just as they always have.
> I wish we were a country that was able to elect politicians willing to
> talk about what we need to do, rather than what people would like to hear.
Nobody agrees about what we "need" to do, so it's just as well.
Most folks, even those interested in discussing the issue, haven't
a clue what the problems are. The very fact that terms like "lock
box" don't get folks laughed off of the stage is a sure indication
of this.
David Chase
> In <3B2EC1F5...@world.std.com>, David Chase wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to add up to a healthy economy.
>
> You know perfectly well it can't add up to a healthy economy. But
> everyone, politicians and public alike, hopes it doesn't implode on
> their beat.
I don't know that it will certainly fail, but if we don't make
vaguely rational plans, it's much more likely to fail. Raising
the retirement age a bit (and some of that is already scheduled
to happen, if I recall properly) helps a lot. Figuring out
ways to make the few people who are still working much more
productive is a good thing (i.e., maybe some investments or
research should be spent in that direction). Figuring out
ways to care for older people more efficiently is another
good thing. Figuring out ways to keep them productive while
semi-retired would be good, too.
As far as investments go, one thing to consider is diversifying
into other demographically younger countries.
Pretending that there's not a problem (and hence, not thinking
about solutions) would not be a good thing.
David
Elisabeth Riba
> I don't know that it will certainly fail, but if we don't make
> vaguely rational plans, it's much more likely to fail. Raising
> the retirement age a bit (and some of that is already scheduled
> to happen, if I recall properly) helps a lot.
One yabbut on this.
Keep in mind that not everybody works white-collar jobs; some jobs (such
as construction) do require certain physical abilities that may decline
with age.
Somebody who does (say) data-entry on computer will have an easier time
retiring later than someone who wields the jackhammer in new high-rise
buildings.
And if a person can't do the high-rise construction at the higher
retirement age, what then? Do they start over with an entry-level
position in a new field at their age?
I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, but just pointing out a couple
consequences that aren't always considered...
Elisabeth Riba
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> writes:
>> However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
>> benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
> Nope, but there's really no excuse for them not putting in place
> means-tests and raising the age at which benefits become available.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, that would mean you're punishing those who
had the foresight to plan ahead & save and the luck to do well at it,
while rewarding those who trusted the government promise and didn't save.
Mary-Anne G. Wolf
we cannot afford to pay all the old folks what they think they
deserve, then there are two options: tax more and pay less.
Demographics says that tax more will not be viable. If we pay less,
shouldn't we concentrate on those who can afford it? Yes it is not
fair, but it seems the least bad option.
Mary-Anne
@--------------------
Adam Kippes
> Are govt retirement payments non taxable or something?
Hardly.
<http://www.myfinancialsite.com/calcs/pension_benefits_widowed_single_divorced_index.php>
Adam Kippes
> Don't know the details, but (many) private employees have 401(k) plans.
> I don't think gov't employees have 401(k), but this could be an attempted
> equivalent.
<http://www.myfinancialsite.com/calcs/pension_benefits_widowed_single_divorced_index.php>
Xiphias Gladius
> In article <z5IX6.51487$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com>,
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> } I *also* know that keeping my parents' and grandparents'
> } generations from starving means that my generation has to still pay into
> } the system.
> I think part of my annoyance with this system is that it is not need
> based. There can be no justification for people taking out much more
> than they put in when it is not even needed. Stop people from
> "starving"? Fine, but what about the people who are not starving? What
> percentage of the total wealth of this nation is held by those over 55?
I wouldn't mind switching Social Security over to a welfare program. I
*like* the idea of social welfare -- it's one of the reasons I consider
myself a liberal. However, it does seem a little unfair to change the
rules in the middle of the game like that (although, well, I've been
arguing that we're going to *have* to change the rules in the middle of
the game at some point: perhaps that way of changing the rules is less
offensive than any of our other options. . . )
As Lis has pointed out, though, this would have the effect of punishing
those who invested wisely. That may, however, be unavoidable.
Adam Kippes
> The FAQ points to many publications and forms, but as usual, none answer
> the questions in layman's terms.
Or even in terms the IRS agents understand. But then, they don't have
to understand.
Xiphias Gladius
However, switching to a stock-market investement plan is more analagous to
looking at the broken femur and deciding that the fracture would look
niftier if it was compounded. . .
I don't think any of the Dems' proposed solutions will solve the
problem. I might even be able to be convinced that the Dems' proposals
will make the problem worse. However, I'm *certain* that Bush's proposal
will also make the problem worse.
If we're arguing about whether it's better to break one's other leg, or
compound the existing fracture, I, for one, would like to have a different
argument.
Michael Zarlenga
: Nope, but there's really no excuse for them not putting in place
: means-tests and raising the age at which benefits become available.
Sure there are ... for DECADES, people like me have been
forced to pay a rather large %age of our income into this
fund.
If you're now going to tell some of us that because we
scrimped and saved and sacrficied MORE by saving in a 401(k)
or IRA or a company pension plan that we're fucked out of
SS benefits, you can be certain that will not go over well.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Adam Kippes
> I think part of my annoyance with this system is that it is not need
> based. There can be no justification for people taking out much more
> than they put in when it is not even needed. Stop people from
> "starving"? Fine, but what about the people who are not starving? What
> percentage of the total wealth of this nation is held by those over 55?
Your problem, Charles, is that you don't understand socialism.
Social Security was intended by FDR to be the cornerstone of future
socialism in this country; that is why it is *not* need based. The
whole idea behind making it an entitlement open to all is to make
everyone feel they have a stake in it and therefore guarantee that it
would never be done away with or substantially altered.
As for the wealth question; I don't know the exact answer but it is
the solid majority.
Michael Zarlenga
: Just to play Devil's Advocate, that would mean you're punishing those who
: while rewarding those who trusted the government promise and didn't save.
Or, in other words, you're punishing the people who saved
their money and did without while giving their share of the
money to the assholes who spent theirs foolishly or gambled
theirs all away at Foxwoods. (For example).
If you think the current system is untenable, imagine
THAT one.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Mary Malmros
[snip]
>
>> However, there is *no* way that they're going to cut social security
>> benifits significantly while the boomers are collecting. This means that
>
>Nope, but there's really no excuse for them not putting in place
>means-tests and raising the age at which benefits become available.
Some of that IS in place. My father is 84, working, and NOT able
to draw social security.
Mary Malmros
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>In ne.general David Chase <ch...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> I don't know that it will certainly fail, but if we don't make
>> vaguely rational plans, it's much more likely to fail. Raising
>> the retirement age a bit (and some of that is already scheduled
>> to happen, if I recall properly) helps a lot.
>
>One yabbut on this.
>Keep in mind that not everybody works white-collar jobs; some jobs (such
>as construction) do require certain physical abilities that may decline
>with age.
>
>Somebody who does (say) data-entry on computer will have an easier time
>retiring later than someone who wields the jackhammer in new high-rise
>buildings.
>
>And if a person can't do the high-rise construction at the higher
>retirement age, what then? Do they start over with an entry-level
>position in a new field at their age?
They might not have to. A lot of white-collar folx don't realize
this, but there's a big difference between skilled trades and
unskilled labor. "Construction" includes both. My dad is just
about to turn 84 and is still working, primarily as a construction
project planner and job estimator. He's much in demand, indirectly
because of his age: his experience allows him to do his type of work
faster, with fewer errors and fewer omissions, than a less
experienced worker would be able to. It strikes me that many
older workers are in exactly that situation, and that it should
not be a matter of retraining, but of allowing them to work in their
fields, in positions where their experience is a strong asset.
Re: SocSec, the problem as I see it is not so much the failure
of the current system, as a lack of a national consensus (or even
dialogue) on what is appropriate in the way of a social safety net.
Seems to me if we had a clear sense of, "This is what we want,
and we're willing to sacrifice to get it," we'd figure out the rest
quickly enough. So, as urgent as the SS problem is, I wonder if
focusing on a fix specific to it would not mean a much bigger problem,
not too far down the road.
Adam Kippes
> Do you even understand the difference between a Constitutional republic and
> a democracy?
Charles, you are asking that of someone who has already (more than
once) declared the Constitution a worthless piece of parchment.
Adam Kippes
> if you can refrain from the ad hominems, but I think that's a long way off.
What is that creature that refuses to have mirrors in the house?
Adam Kippes
> You've responded to me with a whole lot of
> gratuitous antagonism and unwarranted viciousness, but you know what?
Vampire? Is that the creature? It would seem appropriate.
> That's something that you have to live with and I don't have to
> listen to.
> Bye bye, now,
You supercilious...
tonyp
Charles M. Kozierok <ix...@PCGuide.com> wrote
> They are all part and parcel of the same problem, as should be obvious
> to anyone who closely examines the current situation. And I never
mentioned
> the judiciary.
Oh, I _do_ apologize. Who did you _mean_ to accuse of "reducing the
Constitution to toilet paper"?
> I never said anything about whom I wanted to run the country, so I have
> no idea why you would introduce such a spurious rhetorical question.
After you complain about the voters, the politicians, and the judges, can
you really call it a _rhetorical_ question?
> How can I take *you* seriously when you don't respond to the issues I
raised,
> and instead insult me with straw man arguments and patronizing comments?
I dunno. Do you _need_ to take me seriously?
> I said that the current political system has resulted in an inherent
> corruption of the ideals and principles upon which this country was
> founded: the rule of law. Today, politics is about how many butts a
> group can bare for politicians to kiss. The social security system
> is a good example of how dysfunctional many of our current entitlement
> programs are, and your apathy is a sign of how bad things really are.
Apathy? I am trying to convince people of certain things, just as you
are. Not the _same_ things, to be sure.
> I never mentioned "irrevocable decline". I never said anything about the
> military running the country, or whatever else it is you are going on
> about here. Please, if you can't respond to what I write, and want to
> just talk about something else entirely, just start a new thread.
When what you write amounts to nothing more than "Mehercule! Hoc quidem
lapsus et ruina", what kind of response would you consider _not_
insulting? If I agreed with you that "Gee whiz, this really _is_ a
decline and fall", I would say so. But I don't, and I told you why. Be
insulted if it pleases you.
> And by the way, where is your defense of your rather silly comparison of
> social security to inter-generational family? Still going to tell us
> that a system where the first few people in get multiples more than
> they invested while the late-comers likely get screwed is *not* a
> Ponzi scheme? Or are *you* so naive as to not realize that eventually,
> *some* generation is going to be left holding the bag?
Ahem. _My_ comparison was "Ponzi scheme = intergenerational family", and
the point was that it _is_ a silly comparison. Thus, since "social
security == (national scale) intergenerational family", Mike's persistent
"social security = Ponzi scheme" comparison is a dud.
"Some generation" will eventually "be left holding the bag" on practically
everything. No more oil, not enough ozone, piles of radioactive waste,
etc. etc. There's only so much we are willing to sacrifice on behalf of
posterity, because posterity has never done a thing for _us_. Seriously,
I find it interesting that some people have such selective concern for
"future generations". If it _were_ possible, through financial
manipulations like privatizing Social Security, to enhance the *real*
standard of living of both retired baby-boomers and their progeny, that
would translate directly into higher consumption of fossil fuels. Why
wouldn't _that_ be a burden on "*some*" future generation?
> Do you even understand the difference between a Constitutional republic
and
> a democracy? Do you *really* not comprehend that having one generation
vote
> itself largesse at the cost of another is not only wrong, but it is
indicative
> of serious structural problems with our sociopolitical system? Would you
> care to tell me by what right *any* group of people should be allowed to
> set up a system where they take money from another group with no
justification
> whatsoever, and not even based on need?
As far as I can tell, to you a democratic system is a "Constitutional
republic" when it produces results you like, and a "democracy" when it
doesn't. But OK, let's say I _don't_ understand the difference, and let's
get back to social security.
"Not even based on need" is something you and I agree about. That is, if
I had my way, Social Security benefits _would_ be means-tested. The
reason they are not, as you well know, is that the well-off are opposed to
such an idea, for _they_ are the ones who would fail the means test.
Paying SS benefits to rich retirees is the political kiss on the nether
cheek which is the price we must pay for maintaining a system that
supports poor retirees. I am neither so apathetic as to have given up
hope of changing that, nor so naive as to think it will be easy.
Look, the _demographic_ problems (boomer retirement, higher longevity)
were not caused by the Social Security Act, and cannot be eliminated by
merely financial manipulations. In real, as opposed to financial, terms,
there will be no choice: we will _have_ to keep the worker:retiree ratio
under control. A later retirement age and more immigration are two
possible mechanisms for achieving that. "Privatizing" Social Security is
not.
> Next time, please try using rational arguments as a response.
My "rational" or your "rational"?
-- Tony Prentakis
Adam Kippes
> Do folks think that making social security "need based" will help?
Yes, but...
> If we cannot afford to pay all the old folks what they think they
> deserve,
Wish is to say, what they want. And will get.
> then there are two options: tax more and pay less.
That's only one, what's the other?
> Demographics says that tax more will not be viable.
It will be for some time to come.
> If we pay less, shouldn't we concentrate on those who can afford it?
Yes. In my opinion, anyway.
> Yes it is not fair, but it seems the least bad option.
What's unfair about it? Are you saying people should have an automatic
right to whatever they want?
Elisabeth Riba
> discipline to save and the ability to invest would be better off if they
> were able to keep their money.
Not necessarily better off.
Herbert Stein illustrates the choice by asking which of the following
two options is preferable for a basic retirement plan--one that
guarantees a retirement income equal to 50 percent of average earnings
or one that gives a 50-50 chance of 120 percent of average earnings or
nothing? The latter has a higher expected value, 60 percent of income on
average. But for the basic retirement program, the sure bet of social
insurance is preferable. One should not subject the mass of the public,
most with few assets and therefore little capacity to withstand
financial reverses, to the uncertainties inherent in individual
investment accounts.
Quoting from http://www.brook.edu/pub/review/summer97/pss.htm
In your scenario, who should bear the risk if the individual investor
fails to earn enough time by retirement? Should s/he starve in the
streets, or should the government provide a safety net to bail them out?
Adam Kippes
> The entire social security system does this already. Anyone who has the
> discipline to save and the ability to invest would be better off if they
> were able to keep their money
Yes, but those who squander and indulge benefit. Forgive my cynicism
but I suspect the improvident outnumber the provident.
Michael Zarlenga
: Ahem. _My_ comparison was "Ponzi scheme = intergenerational family", and
: the point was that it _is_ a silly comparison. Thus, since "social
: security == (national scale) intergenerational family", Mike's persistent
: "social security = Ponzi scheme" comparison is a dud.
Tony, why do you continue to claim the comparison is flawed while
ignoring the fact that the trial judge's description of why Carlo
Ponzi's scheme was illegal applies perfectly to Social Security?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Adam Kippes
> I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, but just pointing out a couple
> consequences that aren't always considered...
And good points they are. Perhaps Congress expects them to take early
retirement and its dramatically lower benefits, aggravated by their
probably lower average earnings.
But then blue-collars are outnumbered these days and less likely to
vote, too. The squeaky wheel and all that.
Adam Kippes
> Some of that IS in place. My father is 84, working, and NOT able
> to draw social security.
What do you mean he can't draw? My father was collecting and working
until he was seventy-six; he just had to pay taxes on it beyond a
certain point.