Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You had no problem believing what the government told you a few years ago and I doubt you will when the next Republican takes the oval office.

This trope is beyond tiresome by now. Just because people distrust Democrats does not automatically mean that they do trust Republicans. Most of us doubt anything either party tells us, because most of the time both parties offer self-serving platitudes with no real commitment to anything beyond their own (re-)election.

Many of us were highly critical of GWB and are just as critical, if not more so, of BHO.

So toss your "enemy of my friend must be allied with my friend's enemies" sh^t aside please.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Math is ridiculous? Don't let Scooby hear you say that!!

The net present value of a pension to life expectancy is not that hard to calculate, or to approximate. One can easily get commercial annuity quotes to value a pension for life as well. For example, $100,000 buys a 62-year old female $457 per month for life with American General; or $750,000 buys $41,130 annualized for life.

So, that's a "ridiculous" statement? Seems to me you failed the burden of proof on that score!!



And are you really that ignorant of how Social Security works, or are you merely being reflexively oppositional without thinking first?

A person's Social Security benefit is directly related to the Social Security taxes they paid in during their working life (see ssa.gov). So the government collects money from me (by force of law) while I am working with a promise to pay that very same money back to me again after I retire....at a very low rate of return....on top of which, while they were supposed to set aside that money in a trust fund, they actually spent it elsewhere instead, so that it might not even be available. Were any private company to do that, they'd be facing criminal charges!

how do you equate money I paid in with a promise to be repaid in the future, to a pension for which the pensioner directly contributed nothing (beyond the general income tax payment made by everyone which was insufficient to fund said pension in the first place?)

I'll trade in my 401k in which I bear all the investment risk and all the longevity risk myself, to which I personally contribute 3/4 of the money directly (and indirectly contribute the remaining 1/4 by enhancing my employer's profitability so as to earn the discretionary match) for a pension to which I personally contribute nothing directly, bear no investment risk, and bear no longevity risk.

If you are offering that trade to people in general, they'll take it. If we all want it and can't get it, then by definition the public sector union members are getting preferential treatment relative to the rest of us, at our expense.

Fishy you've gone off the wagon with this one. Ideally social security will have you get back what you pay in. But you don't exhaust your benefits if you live longer than expected. Where did you pull that one from (I'm guessing a body cavity of yours)? That renders the rest of your premise moot. Bottom line is, we are all promised money in our retirement via Medicare & SoS benefits even if beyond what we paid in. Why then are you singling out teachers?

Husky, it depends. I'm aware of the military pension not affecting SoS. However, if you are in a municipal retirement plan you put into that instead of SoS and therefore aren't eligible for SoS benefits. You get whatever pension you earned from that plan. How that differs state by state I'm not sure.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This trope is beyond tiresome by now. Just because people distrust Democrats does not automatically mean that they do trust Republicans. Most of us doubt anything either party tells us, because most of the time both parties offer self-serving platitudes with no real commitment to anything beyond their own (re-)election.

Many of us were highly critical of GWB and are just as critical, if not more so, of BHO.

So toss your "enemy of my friend must be allied with my friend's enemies" sh^t aside please.

I must have missed all the right wingers criticizing Bush. Or is this your idea of criticism?

The reports put out by "the government" are not put out by political hacks on either side. These are civil servants that are typically career people. They wouldn't last long in their jobs if they participated in partisan politics.

But I'll ask you the same question: If you don't trust the evil government, who do you turn to for information?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Fishy you've gone off the wagon with this one. Ideally social security will have you get back what you pay in. But you don't exhaust your benefits if you live longer than expected. Where did you pull that one from (I'm guessing a body cavity of yours)? That renders the rest of your premise moot. Bottom line is, we are all promised money in our retirement via Medicare & SoS benefits even if beyond what we paid in. Why then are you singling out teachers?

Husky, it depends. I'm aware of the military pension not affecting SoS. However, if you are in a municipal retirement plan you put into that instead of SoS and therefore aren't eligible for SoS benefits. You get whatever pension you earned from that plan. How that differs state by state I'm not sure.

My mother was classified a teacher for one job and paid into a Maine retirement fund which is separate from Social Security. As such, those wages are not counted towards her Social Security amount and are not calculated into her retirement.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Husky, it depends. I'm aware of the military pension not affecting SoS. However, if you are in a municipal retirement plan you put into that instead of SoS and therefore aren't eligible for SoS benefits. You get whatever pension you earned from that plan. How that differs state by state I'm not sure.

My father's private sector pensions, which are now paid to my mother, do not in any way reduce her SSA payments. I've been filing her taxes for a long while now. Since engaging those private pensions, her SSA payments have not decreased at all.

It's when you still earn an income in excess of a certain amount with a W-2 filing ($25K, I think) is when SSA payments are decreased.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

That's exactly what I said. Kudos!

Actually, you're right. What you said was even stupider: that people who are successful in school tend to be successful after school, too. Which is fine, but I think you wanted the Redundancy thread.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This sounds a lot like the paradox that medicine leads to a reduction of disease which erodes the perceived need for medicine.

Yep. Or more police protection leads to a drop in crime, which lessens the need for police, etc...

If I was a union member I'd want all my money going to the national political campaigns. Might as well use it to bribe politicians, who in turn will adobt some rule favorable to me. Spending to save the job of the pedo in the next classroom doesn't help me at all.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Actually, you're right. What you said was even stupider: that people who are successful in school tend to be successful after school, too. Which is fine, but I think you wanted the Redundancy thread.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

My mother was classified a teacher for one job and paid into a Maine retirement fund which is separate from Social Security. As such, those wages are not counted towards her Social Security amount and are not calculated into her retirement.

You're referring to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which means that she only collects SS benefits based on the actual SS taxes she paid - her contributions to the retirement fund are not subject to SS taxes, so it makes sense that she doesn't get benefits from them.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You're referring to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which means that she only collects SS benefits based on the actual SS taxes she paid - her contributions to the retirement fund are not subject to SS taxes, so it makes sense that she doesn't get benefits from them.

Isn't that what I just said? She didn't pay into SS, she paid into a similar local retirement fund so she doesn't collect it as SS.

Maybe you need to head over to that redundancy redundancy thread.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So coming back to Fishy's hilarious post, it turns out that 1) Your SoS payments aren't capped by what you put into it, and 2) Many municipal workers such as teachers aren't getting SoS because they paid into their pensions instead which is the so-called windfall they're receiving upon retirement. Why then would knuckledraggers single out teachers for scorn when in fact everyone is collecting in retirement one way or another, and often in excess of what they put in?

 

[BassAle]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

pensions do not cancel your Social Security. unrelated.

a kid enters the armed forces at 18. retires at 38. works at the post office til 65. he'll draw retirement funds from the military, the post office AND get his Social Security.

in some states municipal pension plans complete replace social security. In Maine, I know that teachers participate in the Maine State Retirement Fund and are exempt from Social Seciryt Tax. Therefore they do not collect any SS benefit, unless they had non-teaching income that was subject to SS tax.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So coming back to Fishy's hilarious post, it turns out that 1) Your SoS payments aren't capped by what you put into it, and 2) Many municipal workers such as teachers aren't getting SoS because they paid into their pensions instead which is the so-called windfall they're receiving upon retirement. Why then would knuckledraggers single out teachers for scorn when in fact everyone is collecting in retirement one way or another, and often in excess of what they put in?

So, you're endorsing everyone taking more out of the system than they put in. Oh, that's right, you're not big on sustainability. Par for the course.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Isn't that what I just said? She didn't pay into SS, she paid into a similar local retirement fund so she doesn't collect it as SS.

Maybe you need to head over to that redundancy redundancy thread.

Just clarifying. You have to agree that "those wages are not counted toward her SS amount" is a bit less clear than "she's not paying SS taxes on that income."

The point is that teachers' lack of SS benefits does NOT cause them to be underpaid since those who lack SS benefits also pay no SS taxes.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So coming back to Fishy's hilarious post, it turns out that 1) Your SoS payments aren't capped by what you put into it, and 2) Many municipal workers such as teachers aren't getting SoS because they paid into their pensions instead which is the so-called windfall they're receiving upon retirement. Why then would knuckledraggers single out teachers for scorn when in fact everyone is collecting in retirement one way or another, and often in excess of what they put in?

To be fair, most of us are only singling out teachers' *unions* for scorn.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Math is ridiculous? Don't let Scooby hear you say that!!

The net present value of a pension to life expectancy is not that hard to calculate, or to approximate. One can easily get commercial annuity quotes to value a pension for life as well. For example, $100,000 buys a 62-year old female $457 per month for life with American General; or $750,000 buys $41,130 annualized for life.

So, that's a "ridiculous" statement? Seems to me you failed the burden of proof on that score!!

So wait, if you total up all of your annual salary+benefits over your lifetime you count that as being a millionaire? Hell, by that math everyone on this thread is either already a millionaire or soon will be. Woo-hoo! I'm a millionaire!

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So wait, if you total up all of your annual salary+benefits over your lifetime you count that as being a millionaire? Hell, by that math everyone on this thread is either already a millionaire or soon will be. Woo-hoo! I'm a millionaire!

Yes, that's what he said.

Oh, wait. No it isn't. He said that the "net present value" would be over a million dollars. I think most people would agree that the definition of being a millionaire would be having a current net worth greater than a million dollars. That's not the same thing at all.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Fishy you've gone off the wagon with this one.

I guess if name calling were all it took to win an argument, you'd be all-time champion world-beater.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

1) Your SoS payments aren't capped by what you put into it,

Oh, really?? Here is what SSA.GOV has to say:

Social Security retirement benefits are based on your actual Social Security earnings record.

Your actual Social Security earnings are the basis from which your Social Security payments are derived.

Your actual Social Security earnings are the basis from which your Social Security taxes are paid.

You are trying to wriggle out on a technicality? "no fishy [insert nasal whine], it's not based on what you paid in, it's based on your earnings."

Sorry, I thought you understood the transitive property since you were educated by such wonderful teachers' union members.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Yes, that's what he said.

Oh, wait. No it isn't. He said that the "net present value" would be over a million dollars. I think most people would agree that the definition of being a millionaire would be having a current net worth greater than a million dollars. That's not the same thing at all.

Actually, he said teachers were millionaires in another post. In this post he never said anything about having a net worth greater than a million dollars. He said you could get a pension that would net you $457/month for $100,000. That's assuming you have the $100K set aside to buy one. Since I'm a millionaire now, I should be able to find that between the cushions on my sofa.