2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

While while you do only pay on about the first $120K, the benefit is capped as well. If you don’t cap contributions, it’s not fair to cap payments.

It is worth noting that when SS payments started in 1940, life expectancy for men was about 61, and women about 65.

It’s up up to almost 80 now, that’s an extra 15 years of payments.

 

That's technically true but not relevant to social security payments to the elderly. Those numbers are skewed because of the much higher rate of infant and child mortality back in 1940.. Actually, average longevity for those who make it to adulthood has only increased by about 5 years since 1940.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

I happen not to agree with you about not capping the contributions just because the payments are capped. Sooner or later the cap will be raised, though not eliminated.

So a guy that makes a million a year pays in $62K a year and gets to collect $30K a year if he lives long enough. That sounds really fair.

I bet if you had your way, payments would me means tested, so the guy would likely get nothing, yes?

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So a guy that makes a million a year pays in $62K a year and gets to collect $30K a year if he lives long enough. That sounds really fair.

I bet if you had your way, payments would me means tested, so the guy would likely get nothing, yes?

 

Social Security has always been skewed to benefit those who earn less. And given the huge tax dodges that have always been open to the superwealthy, and have actually been increased by the current administration, a stronger counterweight from social security is long overdue.

And actually, it's virtua-ly always right wingers who make proposeals that Social Security should be means tested. They know that if wealthier people are excluded altogether that will make them more likely to be opposed to it.

So a guy that makes a million a year pays in $62K a year and gets to collect $30K a year if he lives long enough. That sounds really fair.

I bet if you had your way, payments would me means tested, so the guy would likely get nothing, yes?

Yep.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

That's technically true but not relevant to social security payments to the elderly. Those numbers are skewed because of the much higher rate of infant and child mortality back in 1940.. Actually, average longevity for those who make it to adulthood has only increased by about 5 years since 1940.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

That’s a good link, but even if we’re living only five years longer, from 75 to 80 as an example, recipients still collect 50% longer.

But the link did not state of those that make it to adulthood, but rather those that make it to retirement age, so infant mortality would be much less of a factor. A lot of people that didn’t live to see retirement paid in for years.

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

That’s a good link, but even if we’re living only five years longer, from 75 to 80 as an example, recipients still collect 50% longer.

But the link did not state of those that make it to adulthood, but rather those that make it to retirement age, so infant mortality would be much less of a factor. A lot of people that didn’t live to see retirement paid in for years.

 

How else would you explain the discrepancy between SS recipients living 5 years longer on average and increase in average life expectancy for the entire population being much higher than that?

How else would you explain the discrepancy between SS recipients living 5 years longer on average and increase in average life expectancy for the entire population being much higher than that?

 

I was just pointing out that it was talking about people reaching retirement age, not adulthood. A lot of people die between 18 & 65 and the percentage of people that do has declined significantly since 1940.

 

In any event, if people are living 5 years longer (your number) after they retire, they’re collecting 60% longer, yes?

I think that a discussion of social security is off-topic.   Let's get back on topic and stay there.  

 

On 6/11/2019 at 1:44 PM, mogandave said:

 

What is the difference between Trump’s bone-spurs and Biden’s four deferments and then the asthma that went away after the war?

Once President Clinton got a pass I think it fair that everyone gets a pass, yes?

Unless the left hates them of course...

 

Former vice president Joe Biden received five student deferments and former president Bill Clinton received deferments and even penned a letter to an ROTC officer thanking him for "saving me from the draft.

OK, hypocrites, deal with that!

Edited June 15, 20197 yr by Longcut

Joe is falling like a rock anyway. It's a real shame for the dems because he is the best shot they have.

42 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Joe is falling like a rock anyway.

 

Is this statement based on some polling data that you'd care to share with us?

On 6/15/2019 at 9:06 AM, attrayant said:

 

Is this statement based on some polling data that you'd care to share with us?

Most likely it's based on his deep knowledge of the electoral situation in Western Pennsylvania. He scoffed at reports that Trump's internal polling showed it has big problems in PA. Now Trump's own people acknowledge that the reports were true.

President Trump’s internal polling data from March showed him far behind Joe Biden in key battleground states

The polling data, revealed for the first time by ABC News, showed a double-digit lead for Biden in Pennsylvania 55-39 and Wisconsin 51-41 and had Biden leading by seven points in Florida...

When presented by ABC News with these numbers, the Trump campaign confirmed the data saying in a statement that the numbers were old and that they have seen huge swings in Trump’s favor.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trumps-internal-polling-data-march-showed-joe/story?id=63718268

Edited June 17, 20197 yr by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal, again. Please use normal font size when posting.

On 6/15/2019 at 9:52 AM, bristolboy said:

Most likely it's based on his deep knowledge of the electoral situation in Western Pennsylvania. He scoffed at reports that Trump's internal polling showed it has big problems in PA. Now Trump's own people acknowledge that the reports were true.

President Trump’s internal polling data from March showed him far behind Joe Biden in key battleground states

The polling data, revealed for the first time by ABC News, showed a double-digit lead for Biden in Pennsylvania 55-39 and Wisconsin 51-41 and had Biden leading by seven points in Florida...

When presented by ABC News with these numbers, the Trump campaign confirmed the data saying in a statement that the numbers were old and that they have seen huge swings in Trump’s favor.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trumps-internal-polling-data-march-showed-joe/story?id=63718268

It's way too soon for polls to be significant ( if they ever are ). The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

If the Dems can put up a better candidate than Trump they will win- end of story.

Anyway, in the broader context, will anyone vote for a candidate only because they support federal funding for abortion? I doubt it.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's way too soon for polls to be significant ( if they ever are ). The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

If the Dems can put up a better candidate than Trump they will win- end of story.

Anyway, in the broader context, will anyone vote for a candidate only because they support federal funding for abortion? I doubt it.

If they were as insignificant as you think they are, why would the Trump campaign be paying for them?

A troll post containing a trolling representation of Trump's name has been removed.  If you do not want your post to be removed, please spell people's names correctly. 

 

Edit:   Troll post removed -- Scott

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 7:42 PM, bristolboy said:

If they were as insignificant as you think they are, why would the Trump campaign be paying for them?

Perhaps because that's what campaigns do. The better question would be "do they believe them"?

Polls can deliver whatever the pollsters want them to, so perhaps it's to make the campaign feel better when they see something they like. I hope they realise it's all bubblegum and <deleted> though.

Edited June 19, 20197 yr by thaibeachlovers

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because they are stupid, perhaps?

Well, if it's stupidity, then it's a trait that they share with virtually all other political campaigns. Of course, some people might say that the, ahem,  lack of perspicacity lies with those who question the intelligence and experience of those in a highly competitive and demanding field of endeavour whilst on their part have demonstrated no understanding of the subject at all.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Well, if it's stupidity, then it's a trait that they share with virtually all other political campaigns. Of course, some people might say that the, ahem,  lack of perspicacity lies with those who question the intelligence and experience of those in a highly competitive and demanding field of endeavour whilst on their part have demonstrated no understanding of the subject at all.

I've changed my post while you were writing that.

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps because that's what campaigns do. The better question would be "do they believe them"?

Polls can deliver whatever the pollsters want them to, so perhaps it's to make the campaign feel better when they see something they like. I hope they realise it's all bubblegum and <deleted> though.

Well, this comment makes even less sense than the previous one. These pollsters were hired by the Trump campaign. Dubious, to say the least, that anyone thought these dismal results would make the those involved in the campaign feel better.