Response to Bill Peckham

[NDXUFan]

Read and Weep:

Wall Street Journal: 
While many seniors believe they are simply drawing out the "savings" they were forced to deposit into Social Security and Medicare, they are actually drawing out much more, especially relative to later generations. That's because politicians have voted to award the seniors ever more generous benefits. As a result, while today's 65-year-olds will receive on average net lifetime benefits of $327,400, children born now will suffer net lifetime losses of $420,600 as they struggle to pay the bills of aging Americans.

And 65-year-olds are "much wealthier than the working-age population. So the guy who's out there working—the plumber, the stockbroker, whatever he is—he's paying the 40% rate and the coupon clippers who are not working anymore are paying a 20% rate."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141790296396688?mod=hp_opinion 

ND:
So, the Economics Departments at Boston University and Stanford disagree with your analysis, I will take Boston University and Stanford, every single time.   I am curious, when will you admit that we are bankrupt, $20 trillion?, $30 trillion?, $40 trillion?, $50 trillion?  Where do you think that the money will come to pay these promised benefits? 









Edited: Moved to off-topic thread area-kitkatz,Moderator

[Bill Peckham]

So this is in response to this post I believe - http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=29805.msg469401#msg469401 which seems to have been locked after being shut down by obsidianom for unrelated reasons. Let's review. Mark aka NXDUFan wrote asking:

what entitles those over 65 to have Medicare, taking the money from younger people who on average have a net worth of around $3,600.00 dollars?  The average couple pays $500,000 into Medicare and receives $1,000,000 from Medicare(taxpayers)(Stanford Department of Economics) is that truly fair?  What entitles these people to have Medicare when they are wealthy enough to afford a home in Florida?  The vast majority of people over 65 have money to burn, why are they entitled to the money earned by a younger working individual?  Why should the youger generation be forced to pay the over 65 crowd's medical bills, Comrade?

To which I replied in both text and graph form - the graphs are reposted below - that no, you're way off Mark -  it would be hard to pay more than $130,000 lifetime into Medicare, whether you're a dual income couple or not. And average lifetime Medicare benefits are on the order of $200,000 -$250,000 per person or $400,000 to $500,000 per couple. (see attached charts, from the Urban Institute via politifact).

And now we come to this new thread and Mark supplied an actual link which makes clear that the issue is Mark's reading comprehension and not anything to do with the numbers.

Mark the numbers you wish proved your point are based on Medicare AND Social Security spending. If you look at the actual numbers or even glanced at the charts I supplied, you will see that Social Security makes up the large majority of the lifetime taxes paid and a bit over half the lifetime benefits enjoyed. Social Security is not Medicare and Medicare is not Social Security.

If you want to talk about Medicare then talk about Medicare but don't inflate the numbers by including Social Security. Medicare taxes amount to 1.45% of earnings (2.9% if you want to include the employer side, a position I am sympathetic to). In order for a person or couple to have paid $420,000 lifetime into Medicare they would have had lifetime earnings on the order of $14,483,000. I can assure you most people do not earn even ten million dollars in their lifetime.  

This thread is an helpful illustration of one of the things I find irritating about your style of argument Mark. You tend to make appeals to authority – the Stanford Department of Economics! My brother! Professors at MIT! – without links to the data. Without links, I have no reason to think you know what you are talking about; I am certain the Stanford Department of Economics does exist what I doubt is your ability to understand and put into proper context their data. You bring to mind that guy in line behind Woody Allen in Anne Hall; if only Marshall McLuhan would post on IHD. Actually, the relevant person would be if Milton Friedman could come out from behind a column and explain why Mark's economic analyses are so highly suspect.

[Joe]

 

[Riki]

I'd like to know where he gets the idea that most older people are wealthier than younger people, and that they can all afford homes in Florida.  I know my grandparents can't.  My parents can't even afford to own a home, period.  I'd say that those who can afford retirement homes in Florida are in the minority

[Jean]

I am on Social Security and have 2 pensions. Today my husband's Social Security was put into our checking account. I paid the bills and bough groceries. I now have $26.00 in my account. BOY, I am really overdrawing the system aren't I? And, no, I do not own a home in Florida!!!

[Rerun]

Those Older people were once "younger" and did pay into the system.  The 50 and 60 year olds who are still working still pay into the system they hope to reap from.  But, Govt needs to keep their paws out of the fund.  I feel guilty for sucking off the fund for my needs.  That is not what the fund was intended for.

[Simon Dog]

I am on Social Security and have 2 pensions. Today my husband's Social Security was put into our checking account. I paid the bills and bough groceries. I now have $26.00 in my account. BOY, I am really overdrawing the system aren't I? And, no, I do not own a home in Florida!!!

There are two ways of evaluating "overdrawing" -

1.  Using a "from each according to his need, to each according to his ability" criteria.  Google to find the source of this phrase.

2.  Comparison to what a normal market return of your "investment" would generate.   

Many of today's seniors may find that although SS is not enough to live on, it represents a return on investment for their "input" well in excess of market returns, and thus represents a generational transfer payment.

I don't know your specifics, but it may very well be that you are overdrawing the system relative to what you put into it, just as it is virtually certain today's youth will have to "underdraw" the system when (or should I say if) they start collecting.

[MooseMom]

Those Older people were once "younger" and did pay into the system.  The 50 and 60 year olds who are still working still pay into the system they hope to reap from.  But, Govt needs to keep their paws out of the fund.  I feel guilty for sucking off the fund for my needs.  That is not what the fund was intended for.

Rerun, I happened to hear a really interesting piece on the radio yesterday about SS and how the fund is invested, and your post reminded me of that conversation.  I found this link which I think might ease your mind.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#a0=6

As for feeling guilty, if the powers that be didn't believe that the fund wasn't intended for people with your sort of needs, then you wouldn't be getting anything. 

[willowtreewren]

Those Older people were once "younger" and did pay into the system.  The 50 and 60 year olds who are still working still pay into the system they hope to reap from.  But, Govt needs to keep their paws out of the fund.  I feel guilty for sucking off the fund for my needs.  That is not what the fund was intended for.

Rerun, I happened to hear a really interesting piece on the radio yesterday about SS and how the fund is invested, and your post reminded me of that conversation.  I found this link which I think might ease your mind.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#a0=6

As for feeling guilty, if the powers that be didn't believe that the fund wasn't intended for people with your sort of needs, then you wouldn't be getting anything.

That was an interesting link, MM. Thanks!

Aleta

[Joe]

Yes MM, thanks for that link.

[Hemodoc]

Those Older people were once "younger" and did pay into the system.  The 50 and 60 year olds who are still working still pay into the system they hope to reap from.  But, Govt needs to keep their paws out of the fund.  I feel guilty for sucking off the fund for my needs.  That is not what the fund was intended for.

Well stated. I have paid in much more than a million dollars in taxes and social security in my time at work. I am going to have to live for quite a while to set that back and that is not taking into account the devaluation of current dollars to boot.

[Bill Peckham]

Well stated. I have paid in much more than a million dollars in taxes and social security in my time at work. I am going to have to live for quite a while to set that back and that is not taking into account the devaluation of current dollars to boot.

Taxes and Social Security? What benefit value are assigning to being able to visit National Parks? etc.

[Hemodoc]

Well stated. I have paid in much more than a million dollars in taxes and social security in my time at work. I am going to have to live for quite a while to set that back and that is not taking into account the devaluation of current dollars to boot.

Taxes and Social Security? What benefit value are assigning to being able to visit National Parks? etc.

Sorry, but we don't own ANY national parks any longer. Not sure why we are paying for something with tax dollars that we no longer own. Go figure.

[willowtreewren]

Well stated. I have paid in much more than a million dollars in taxes and social security in my time at work. I am going to have to live for quite a while to set that back and that is not taking into account the devaluation of current dollars to boot.

Taxes and Social Security? What benefit value are assigning to being able to visit National Parks? etc.

Sorry, but we don't own ANY national parks any longer. Not sure why we are paying for something with tax dollars that we no longer own. Go figure.

 

I sure can't figure out that statement! I am mighty glad to have the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in my backyard and the Big South Fork National Recreation Area in my front yard. Without my tax dollars helping to support those areas, they would be grossly commercialized or totally inaccessible.

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

Aleta, once again, you don't know what is going on even in your neck of the woods and you didn't read my statement well at all. I stated, WHY should we pay tax dollars for something we don't own. I guess you are unaware that the Great Smokey and all of the other national parks no longer are sovereign US territory. Sorry, that is not true, but I will let you research why that is a true statement.

Have a great day, but the Smokey's don't belong to the US. So, why should we pay taxes for something we don't own any longer???

[noahvale]

**

[willowtreewren]

Thanks for the added information, Noahvale. 

[cariad]

Aleta, once again, you don't know what is going on even in your neck of the woods and you didn't read my statement well at all.

I had to read this to my family since we spent several days with Aleta and Carl in their "neck of the woods" and Aidan, who is difficult to rattle, became exasperated very quickly when he heard Aleta's expertise in the area being disparaged. Peter, it is you who have no idea what you are talking about. Aleta not only knows that area "like the back of her hand" to quote my son, she owns and runs a school and has decades of experience taking school groups through that park. (With loads of fascinating tales to tell and information to generously share as a result of her work.) How dare you call her knowledge and professionalism in to question. Clearly, you have been grossly misinformed and do not even have the decency to apologise to Aleta for insulting her. 

Aleta, reading this did give the family a chance to reminisce about our time spent with you. Even Liot remembers chasing salamanders and he was only four! Aidan remembered several of your stories that I had forgot, while I reminded them of your bear/parking lot story and the importance of kids letting the adults lead (much as it pains Aidan to let someone else be in charge!) What Gwyn and I remember most is the amazing hospitality that you showed us, how you two managed to get our boys to listen so that we didn't have to worry about their safety on the mountain (I cannot possibly overstate how amazing a feat this is with the younger one) and how mere months after transplant, Carl easily outpaced us on the trail. It is such a special memory for us all - thank you!

[Hemodoc]

Aleta, once again, you don't know what is going on even in your neck of the woods and you didn't read my statement well at all.

I had to read this to my family since we spent several days with Aleta and Carl in their "neck of the woods" and Aidan, who is difficult to rattle, became exasperated very quickly when he heard Aleta's expertise in the area being disparaged. Peter, it is you who have no idea what you are talking about. Aleta not only knows that area "like the back of her hand" to quote my son, she owns and runs a school and has decades of experience taking school groups through that park. (With loads of fascinating tales to tell and information to generously share as a result of her work.) How dare you call her knowledge and professionalism in to question. Clearly, you have been grossly misinformed and do not even have the decency to apologise to Aleta for insulting her. 

Hmmm, Noahvale understood exactly what I was talking about without spelling it out. Go figure. In any case, always a pleasure to hear from you Cariad. Have a great day.

[cariad]

Hmmm, Noahvale understood exactly what I was talking about without spelling it out. Go figure. In any case, always a pleasure to hear from you Cariad. Have a great day.

Seems to me (and Gwyn) that Noahvale was correcting your falsehoods, specifically this risible bit of fiction:

I guess you are unaware that the Great Smokey and all of the other national parks no longer are sovereign US territory.

I understood that you were insulting Aleta by repeatedly claiming to know more about her neighbourhood and work than she does.

And I had a bloody fantastic day, thanks!

[Hemodoc]

Well, I guess you are unaware of the true impact of the UNESCO treaty on the sovereignty of our own lands now controlled by this treaty. Shortly after Clinton signed Yellowstone and MILLIONS of acres of wilderness over to UNESCO, the UN exerted it's authority under this treaty to shut down a mining operation 3 miles outside of the park boundaries on privately owned land even though the environmental impact was not an issue. The UN has the final say on these issues and could actually declare them off limits to all US citizens. You are simply in error that we have retained control of these lands.

The issue caused quite a sensation in the Pacific Northwest especially after Clinton had a UN delegation inspect the mine. Quite a few folks have not forgotten this lesson.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/dec/08/crown-butte-executive-defends-yellowstone-mine/

My QUESTION to Aleta still stands, WHY should we pay taxes to support land that is no longer under our sovereign control? It seems you have not understood my question either. It was quite simple and succinct.

[Bill Peckham]

Holy crap:
"On Thursday, they received word that their bid had advanced to the final stage, making Japanese cuisine all but certain to win ... UNESCO designation in early December." UNESCO is going to declare the traditional dining cultures of Japan one of the World's intangible heritages.


Do you know what this means? No more hamburgers! Sushi bars in all National Parks.

[noahvale]

^

[cariad]

Holy crap:
"On Thursday, they received word that their bid had advanced to the final stage, making Japanese cuisine all but certain to win ... UNESCO designation in early December." UNESCO is going to declare the traditional dining cultures of Japan one of the World's intangible heritages.


Do you know what this means? No more hamburgers! Sushi bars in all National Parks.

It's about time! I say learn to appreciate tofu or stay out of the National Parks.

[cariad]

The UN has the final say on these issues and could actually declare them off limits to all US citizens. You are simply in error that we have retained control of these lands.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. You have predicated your entire argument on a fallacy that has nothing to do with the shutdown of the government.

My QUESTION to Aleta still stands, WHY should we pay taxes to support land that is no longer under our sovereign control? It seems you have not understood my question either. It was quite simple and succinct.

It is not a question that deserves an answer because it is immaterial to this discussion. You are thoroughly misinformed and your smug pedantry is all the more laughable because of it. Here's a statistical question for you:

Which has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Maybe we should take an IHD poll!