Don't Let WTFagboy Call You a Hypocrite On Medicare

[lustylad]

.
As usual, WTFuddlebrain doesn't have a clue. He doesn't understand simple concepts like the time value of money. He thinks an actuary is someone who owns a funeral home. So when he says everyone will take out more in Medicare benefits than they paid in, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Here is why:

A typical couple retiring next year will have paid roughly $140,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes and premiums, and will receive nearly $430,000 in Medicare benefits. That's all fagboy tells you. Here's what he leaves out:

If the couple had invested the $140,000 in equal annual deposits of $3,500 over a 40-year working career starting at age 25, and earned a return of 5% a year, they would have accrued a fund of $423,000 when they retired at 65. And since they wouldn't spend the entire fund at age 65 but would draw it down as needed in retirement, the fund would continue to accrue substantial additional gains in their remaining years.

Of course, you can play around with the assumptions and get slightly different results – e.g. assume a higher or lower annual return, or gradually increasing contributions over their working years (instead of a flat $3,500) – but the principle is the same. In present value terms, dollars put into the system years ago are worth much more than dollars taken out today or tomorrow.

So don't let fagboy call you a leech or a hypocrite for advocating government spending curbs while seeking to protect some or all of your Medicare. Properly calculated on a conservative actuarial return basis, many (if not most) of you will have paid in as much as you will take out.

Of course, the feds are not really investing your Medicare taxes as they should be doing in the above example, but that is a topic for follow-up discussion. We mustn't confuse WTFuglyass by raising too many issues at once.

.

[Jewish Lawyer]

I don't think WTFagboy understands complex business issues, let alone compound interest and rate of return. He just understands that if he pays an illegal alien less than a native born worker, he has an advantage over people who follow the rules.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I don't think WTFagboy understands complex business issues, let alone compound interest and rate of return. He just understands that if he pays an illegal alien less than a native born worker, he has an advantage over people who follow the rules.

I understand you would suck lustyladdyboys dick if he had one. As is you are going to have to take solace in sucking his clit.

Neither of you numbnuts understand just wtf this country would be like if the stock market takes a hit like it did in the depression. What is will look like when the Feds quit propping it up...

lustyladyboy is making a huge assumption. That folks want to take a risk with their SS/Medicare retirement. They do not. It is one of the reasons Mitt lost in 2012.

When the fuc are you two squirrelly bitchs' ever going to post something that resembles the truth?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The "return" on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don't live as long benefit less.
Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I don't think WTFagboy understands complex business issues, let alone compound interest and rate of return. He just understands that if he pays an illegal alien less than a native born worker, he has an advantage over people who follow the rules.

Rules? He's a housing contractor.

Tomorrow (Friday) get in line at the drive through behind the subs in pickups waiting for the VP inside to approve the overdraft for their "pay checks" from the general. And he's gonna tell me about economics?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

.
As usual, WTFuddlebrain doesn't have a clue. He doesn't understand simple concepts like the time value of money. He thinks an actuary is someone who owns a funeral home. So when he says everyone will take out more in Medicare benefits than they paid in, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Here is why:

A typical couple retiring next year will have paid roughly $140,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes and premiums, and will receive nearly $430,000 in Medicare benefits. That's all fagboy tells you. Here's what he leaves out:

If the couple had invested the $140,000 in equal annual deposits of $3,500 over a 40-year working career starting at age 25, and earned a return of 5% a year, they would have accrued a fund of $423,000 when they retired at 65. And since they wouldn't spend the entire fund at age 65 but would draw it down as needed in retirement, the fund would continue to accrue substantial additional gains in their remaining years.

Of course, you can play around with the assumptions and get slightly different results – e.g. assume a higher or lower annual return, or gradually increasing contributions over their working years (instead of a flat $3,500) – but the principle is the same. In present value terms, dollars put into the system years ago are worth much more than dollars taken out today or tomorrow.

So don't let fagboy call you a leech or a hypocrite for advocating government spending curbs while seeking to protect some or all of your Medicare. Properly calculated on a conservative actuarial return basis, many (if not most) of you will have paid in as much as you will take out.

Of course, the feds are not really investing your Medicare taxes as they should be doing in the above example, but that is a topic for follow-up discussion. We mustn't confuse WTFuglyass by raising too many issues at once.

.

\

Excellent point. And you can make the same point about Social Security. I have paid into Social Security for decades and had I been able to invest the same money on my own, I would be better off than I currently am with the government holding and investing my money.

However, how many people would have the forethought to actually invest money paid to Medicare and Social Security if left to themselves? My guess is very few. We would end up in our 60s with nothing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Rules? He's a housing contractor.

I no more hire the subs than you hire the busboys. Now JL hiring him some illegal Asian pussy is a different story. He not only hires them, he fuck the girls and sucks the guys! They love him long long time.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Tomorrow (Friday) get in line at the drive through behind the subs in pickups waiting for the VP inside to approve the overdraft for their "pay checks" from the general. And he's gonna tell me about economics?

I'm not getting in any line tomorrow. I am telling you that if you keep lying your nose is going to grow bigger than a elephant dick. It will be all you can do to keep lustylad from trying to suck it.





Speaking of lines....try not and lose your turn in line at the SS office.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

\

Excellent point. And you can make the same point about Social Security. I have paid into Social Security for decades and had I been able to invest the same money on my own, I would be better off than I currently am with the government holding and investing my money.

That can be said of any insurance you have!

However, how many people would have the forethought to actually invest money paid to Medicare and Social Security if left to themselves? My guess is very few. We would end up in our 60s with nothing.

Exactly....wind up like LL, crying about the government messing with your Medicare!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

\

Excellent point. And you can make the same point about Social Security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../oss032498.htm

"Put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. In 1997, for example, the government took in $446 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out only $365 billion in benefits. The extra $81 billion went into a trust fund (valued at about $631 billion) and was lent out to finance other federal programs. Moynihan has long wanted to end this nonsense. We're extracting tax dollars from those who can least afford it – and from everyone who might have better uses for it. Paring back, or even abolishing, the payroll tax is an idea that liberals, social conservatives and libertarians can love."

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Neither of you numbnuts understand just wtf this country would be like if the stock market takes a hit like it did in the depression. What it will look like when the Feds quit propping it up...

lustyladyboy is making a huge assumption. That folks want to take a risk with their SS/Medicare retirement. They do not. It is one of the reasons Mitt lost in 2012.

Nope. I'm not making a huge assumption. Fagboy is. Who the fuck said anything about the stock market? Or even taking a risk? Over the past 40 years, you could have earned an average 5% annual return if you just invested in 10-year Treasury bonds, which are considered risk-free.

My big point is WTFoggyhead is comparing apples and oranges when he looks at yesterday's dollars in and tomorrow's dollars out without making ANY adjustments to present value. We can quibble about the appropriate interest or discount rate to use in this analysis, but it's not zero.

And by the way, Mitt didn't want to privatize SS or Medicare. That was Bush's idea (for SS, not Medicare) back in 2005. Like Obamacare, it was a dumb idea but at least Bush dropped it.

.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That was Bush's idea (for SS, not Medicare) back in 2005. Like Obamacare, it was a dumb idea but at least Bush dropped it.

Patrick Moynihan was the first politician I know who suggested it. He knew more about SS than anyone. He also wanted to keep the government's grimmies out of the surplus and prevent borrowing from the surplus, which was around 650 BILLION in the late 90's.

Bush gave it up, because it was not going to pass. Moynihan couldn't get it through either. it has almost been a slush fund for Congress. Who's going to get rid of that?

[Whirlaway]

To this day; one of my biggest disappointments in Obama is the fact he walked away from Bowles-Simpson. It was Obama who created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. There was enough tough medicine for both sides. Obama walked away from it because of political blow back from the left.

Our fiscal problems would not be so daunting if Obama had shown some leadership - the kind he promised in the 2008 campaign.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by WTF

The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The "return" on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don't live as long benefit less.
Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization.

If it were an insurance program, it would be required by the fucking government to be actuarially sound, with a fucking rate of return. So even at 2% interest, a shit return, most people would get more dollars out than they got in, plus it would at least guarantee return of principle, or nobody would buy it!
If you live long or not, your rate of return is dependent upon the return on the balance, and death benefit. You are financially primitive, and a faggot to boot.
You can even have an infinite payout of around 2 or 3%, essentially the other side of your overextended line of credit at your poor bank, The United States Bank of Suckers, though I'm sure they expect at least 7% unless you are paying a vig to some Italian somewhere at two points per week.

[LexusLover]

The SS Death Benefit is a whopping $255, with conditions for recipients.

Which reminds me. I recall WTF posting that it would better for old people to die earlier so they wouldn't be a burden on WTF, and the rest of his death-panel freaks. I wonder if he shares those "feelings" with his leeching parents .... he wants them to hurry up and die so they won't be a burden on him and the rest of the taxed-children-of-leeches.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The SS Death Benefit is a whopping $255, with conditions for recipients.

Which reminds me. I recall WTF posting that it would better for old people to die earlier so they wouldn't be a burden on WTF, and the rest of his death-panel freaks. I wonder if he shares those "feelings" with his leeching parents .... he wants them to hurry up and die so they won't be a burden on him and the rest of the taxed-children-of-leeches.

WTF the moronic buffoon said "Fuc' Granny."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

We're extracting tax dollars from those who can least afford it – and from everyone who might have better uses for it. Paring back, or even abolishing, the payroll tax is an idea that liberals, social conservatives and libertarians can love."

How would you neocons pay for your wars and toys for wars? Nation building might be harder to come by if you didn't just have to have and note saying you stole your own retirement savings.

Which is wtf I have been saying for years....glad you came on board.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Patrick Moynihan was the first politician I know who suggested it. He knew more about SS than anyone. He also wanted to keep the government's grimmies out of the surplus and prevent borrowing from the surplus, which was around 650 BILLION in the late 90's.

Bush gave it up, because it was not going to pass. Moynihan couldn't get it through either. it has almost been a slush fund for Congress. Who's going to get rid of that?

LL, are you ready to quit giving your SS surplus to the neocons ?

Good Lord, it is about time you figured out where your savings went....you spent in on wars!