BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label millionaires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label millionaires. Show all posts
30 December 2025
26 April 2012
Social Security and Medicare: Six Common Myths, Debunked 24APR12 & Social Security In US Less Generous Than Similar Countries 21APR12
AS negotiations for the 2013 budget begin, and the deadline for federal budget cuts loom we will be bombarded with propaganda, misinformation and deception about Social Security and Medicare in an attempt to raise the retirement age and cut benefits. Here are some of the lies and facts about these programs from HuffPost and Crooks & Liars.....
In the coming days and weeks we'll be hearing a lot of misinformation about the Trustees Report from the Social Security Administration. It's time to separate the myths from the realities:
1. Myth: "Social Security and Medicare have a cost problem."
Fact: Medicare has a financial problem. As this chart shows, the cost of providing Social Security benefits is not out of control or skyrocketing.
Fact: That's a headline we saw repeated across the country in anticipation of the Trustees Report, but it's wrong. What's "straining" Social Security and Medicare today is the unequal distribution of income and a broken regulatory system for Wall Street that has put the entire economy under stress.
Social Security was actuarially stable after it was overhauled by the Greenspan Commission in the 1980s. The baby boomers were all alive and (mostly) working by then. So what really happened?
First, a radical upward shift in income toward the "1 percent" -- and the "0.0001 percent" -- meant that more and more of the nation's income was above the payroll tax cap threshold. That reduced the revenue for Social Security (and much of Medicare) from a projected 90 percent of national income to a figure that's closer to 83 percent.
Secondly, a financial crisis brought on by reckless and under-regulated Wall Street banks crashed the economy in 2008. For millions of Americans it has never come back. Joblessness, along with wage stagnation for the "99 percent," further depleted the programs' revenues.
3. Myth: We need to place limits on Medicare spending and cut its benefits.
Fact: That's like saying the way to end forest fires is by firing Smokey Bear. Benefit cuts and spending caps won't solve our health cost problem. There has been an explosion of for-profit hospital chains in the last twenty years, along with profit-driven laboratories, imaging centers, and other types of health providers.
In addition, our system of reimbursing physicians provides an incentive for them to treat more and charge more for their services. That's costly -- and it subjects patients to a lot of unnecessary tests. On top of that, the lion's share of our health economy is "managed" by for-profit insurance companies who have little motivation or skill when it comes to prudent fiscal management.
If we expand Medicare to our entire population we'd have a health system like that of all other industrialized countries -- whose health costs are roughly 60 percent of our own and grow more slowly than our own. Medicare's cost problem would be solved.
By contrast, the solutions being floated in Washington wouldn't fix the problem -- they'd just dump it onto the backs of seniors and the disabled.
4. Myth: We can't get our federal deficits under control without cutting Social Security benefits -- either by raising the eligibility age, placing gimmicky limits on cost-of-living adjustments, or all of the above.
Fact: Social Security is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit. It's an entirely self-sustaining program. If the day comes when it can't pay its full scheduled benefits, those benefits must and will be cut. This is a phony argument.
5. Myth: Too many millionaires are collecting Social Security and Medicare, so we should means-test and deny them these benefits.
Fact: The number of actual "millionaires" on Social Security and Medicare is tiny, by any objective measure. It wouldn't have any significant impact on their budgets to exclude them -- although it would help a lot to tax them.
(Oh, we can't do that! say the "centrists.")
What's more, Medicare and Social Security are social insurance programs. By definition, insurance shouldn't be means-testing like welfare and other aid programs, because you've already paid your premiums. The "means-testing" argument is often used to mischacterize these programs as "welfare," instead of what they really are: Something people have paid into through the payroll tax throughout their working lives, and (in Medicare's case) which they've also supported through their taxes.
6. Myth: Social Security benefits are too generous. They need to be cut because we can't afford them.
Fact: Our Social Security benefits are lower than those of nations that are economically similar to the US. As we said, the current reductions in revenue were caused by 1) an upward distribution of wealth to the "1 percent" and 2) a financial crisis brought about by Wall Street greed and speculation.
That suggests two possible solutions to Social Security's 20-year-from-now problem: 1) Lift the payroll tax cap, and/or 2) impose a small financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up the Social Security shortfall. Either of these approaches would solve the problem.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/social-security-and-medic_b_1450729.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
When compared to other similar countries, retirement benefits in the United States are relatively modest. A report from CNBC took a closer look at retirement systems in numerous countries and found the U.S. to be performing lower than the average. Retirees in the U.S. generally receive about 47 percent of their pre-retirement income on Social Security. Similar programs in Europe and elsewhere generally pay about 68 percent of pre-retirement income.
In the 2011 Melbourne Mercer Global Pensions Index, the U.S. was given a middling grade of "C," along with France, Singapore, Brazil, Poland and Germany.
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/social-security-us-less-generous-
In the coming days and weeks we'll be hearing a lot of misinformation about the Trustees Report from the Social Security Administration. It's time to separate the myths from the realities:
1. Myth: "Social Security and Medicare have a cost problem."
Fact: Medicare has a financial problem. As this chart shows, the cost of providing Social Security benefits is not out of control or skyrocketing.
Fact: That's a headline we saw repeated across the country in anticipation of the Trustees Report, but it's wrong. What's "straining" Social Security and Medicare today is the unequal distribution of income and a broken regulatory system for Wall Street that has put the entire economy under stress.
Social Security was actuarially stable after it was overhauled by the Greenspan Commission in the 1980s. The baby boomers were all alive and (mostly) working by then. So what really happened?
First, a radical upward shift in income toward the "1 percent" -- and the "0.0001 percent" -- meant that more and more of the nation's income was above the payroll tax cap threshold. That reduced the revenue for Social Security (and much of Medicare) from a projected 90 percent of national income to a figure that's closer to 83 percent.
Secondly, a financial crisis brought on by reckless and under-regulated Wall Street banks crashed the economy in 2008. For millions of Americans it has never come back. Joblessness, along with wage stagnation for the "99 percent," further depleted the programs' revenues.
3. Myth: We need to place limits on Medicare spending and cut its benefits.
Fact: That's like saying the way to end forest fires is by firing Smokey Bear. Benefit cuts and spending caps won't solve our health cost problem. There has been an explosion of for-profit hospital chains in the last twenty years, along with profit-driven laboratories, imaging centers, and other types of health providers.
In addition, our system of reimbursing physicians provides an incentive for them to treat more and charge more for their services. That's costly -- and it subjects patients to a lot of unnecessary tests. On top of that, the lion's share of our health economy is "managed" by for-profit insurance companies who have little motivation or skill when it comes to prudent fiscal management.
If we expand Medicare to our entire population we'd have a health system like that of all other industrialized countries -- whose health costs are roughly 60 percent of our own and grow more slowly than our own. Medicare's cost problem would be solved.
By contrast, the solutions being floated in Washington wouldn't fix the problem -- they'd just dump it onto the backs of seniors and the disabled.
4. Myth: We can't get our federal deficits under control without cutting Social Security benefits -- either by raising the eligibility age, placing gimmicky limits on cost-of-living adjustments, or all of the above.
Fact: Social Security is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit. It's an entirely self-sustaining program. If the day comes when it can't pay its full scheduled benefits, those benefits must and will be cut. This is a phony argument.
5. Myth: Too many millionaires are collecting Social Security and Medicare, so we should means-test and deny them these benefits.
Fact: The number of actual "millionaires" on Social Security and Medicare is tiny, by any objective measure. It wouldn't have any significant impact on their budgets to exclude them -- although it would help a lot to tax them.
(Oh, we can't do that! say the "centrists.")
What's more, Medicare and Social Security are social insurance programs. By definition, insurance shouldn't be means-testing like welfare and other aid programs, because you've already paid your premiums. The "means-testing" argument is often used to mischacterize these programs as "welfare," instead of what they really are: Something people have paid into through the payroll tax throughout their working lives, and (in Medicare's case) which they've also supported through their taxes.
6. Myth: Social Security benefits are too generous. They need to be cut because we can't afford them.
Fact: Our Social Security benefits are lower than those of nations that are economically similar to the US. As we said, the current reductions in revenue were caused by 1) an upward distribution of wealth to the "1 percent" and 2) a financial crisis brought about by Wall Street greed and speculation.
That suggests two possible solutions to Social Security's 20-year-from-now problem: 1) Lift the payroll tax cap, and/or 2) impose a small financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up the Social Security shortfall. Either of these approaches would solve the problem.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/social-security-and-medic_b_1450729.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Social Security In US Less Generous Than Similar Countries
When compared to other similar countries, retirement benefits in the United States are relatively modest. A report from CNBC took a closer look at retirement systems in numerous countries and found the U.S. to be performing lower than the average. Retirees in the U.S. generally receive about 47 percent of their pre-retirement income on Social Security. Similar programs in Europe and elsewhere generally pay about 68 percent of pre-retirement income.
In the 2011 Melbourne Mercer Global Pensions Index, the U.S. was given a middling grade of "C," along with France, Singapore, Brazil, Poland and Germany.
A country given a C has “a system that has some good features, but also has major risks and/or shortcomings that should be addressed,” the report states. “Without these improvements, its efficacy and/or long-term sustainability can be questioned.”The Service Employees International Union, among other organizations, is calling upon Washington to improve the U.S. retirement system:
The United States ranked close to average among 16 countries in adequacy of benefits provided and above average in sustainability, the likelihood that the system can maintain the benefits in the future. It fell short, however, on a sub-index focused on the private sector pension system.
The U.S. could take steps for a better score, the report said, including raising the minimum benefit for low-income retirees, improving benefits vesting, and further limiting access to funds before retirement.
The fastest, most efficient and fairest way to improve retirement security in the United States is to strengthen Social Security. Social Security is often the sole source of retirement income for low wage workers who are less likely to have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The problem with Social Security is that its retirement benefits are less than $1,200 per month for millions of low wage workers.SEIU reports that the upper one percent of Americans have already stopped paying Social Security taxes for 2012 because of a cap on what earnings pay into the system. Currently, once someone reaches $110,100 of income they have paid Social Security taxes on, they pay no more into the system for the year. Eliminating this cap is widely seen as the easiest and fairest solution to shoring up the future of Social Security. SEIU has an action opportunity for citizens to contact Congress and demand they scrap the cap.
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/social-security-us-less-generous-
13 April 2012
THE BUFFETT RULE COMES UP FOR A VOTE ON MONDAY 16APR12, TELL YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE FOR THE BUFFETT RULE
THE Buffett Rule is up for a vote in the U.S. Senate this Monday, 16 APR 12. Click the link to tell your Senators to vote for the rule as a first step in bringing fairness to the tax code.
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
12 April 2012
What's your Buffett number? 12APR12
THINK all this about the Buffett Rule is just politics? Well it may be, but here's a chance to find out what your Buffett number is, all you need is your W2.....
What's your Buffett number?
Stay Connected
What's your Buffett number?
Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and see how many millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than you.
Stay Connected
 |
 |
 |
YouTube |  |
Flickr |  |
Google+ | ||||
31 March 2012
Passing the Buffett Rule so that Everyone Pays Their Fair Share (CONTACT CONGRESS) 31MAR12
THE Pres is calling on Congress to pass the Buffett Rule, cutting the tax breaks of the wealthy 1% so they pay their fair share. Here is his weekly address, video and transcripts. And because democracy is not a spectator sport he is calling on all Americans to contact their Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and their Representative https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
and tell them you want the Buffett Rule passed, NOW.
Over the last few months, I’ve been talking about a choice we face as a country. We can either settle for an economy where a few people do really well and everyone else struggles to get by, or we can build an economy where hard work pays off again – where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. That’s up to us.
Today, I want to talk to you about the idea that everyone in this country should do their fair share.
Now, if this were a perfect world, we’d have unlimited resources. No one would ever have to pay any taxes, and we could spend as much as we wanted. But we live in the real world. We don’t have unlimited resources. We have a deficit that needs to be paid down. And we also have to pay for investments that will help our economy grow and keep our country safe: education, research and technology, a strong military, and retirement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
That means we have to make choices. When it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future, should we ask middle-class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point? Or should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share?
That’s the choice. Over the last decade, we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars on what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Now we’re scheduled to spend almost a trillion more. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary. Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, the tax rates for middle class families have barely budged.
That’s not fair. It doesn’t make any sense. Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? Because we can’t afford to do both.
Now, some people call this class warfare. But I think asking a billionaire to pay at least the same tax rate as his secretary is just common sense. We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it. But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.
That’s the America I believe in. And in the next few weeks, Members of Congress will get a chance to show you where they stand. Congress is going to vote on what’s called the Buffett Rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year – like 98 percent of American families do – your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with the rising cost of everything from college tuition to groceries. You’re the ones who deserve a break.
So every Member of Congress is going to go on record. And if they vote to keep giving tax breaks to people like me – tax breaks our country can’t afford – then they’re going to have to explain to you where that money comes from. Either it’s going to add to our deficit, or it’s going to come out of your pocket. Seniors will have to pay more for their Medicare benefits. Students will see their interest rates go up at a time when they can’t afford it. Families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less.
That’s not right. That’s not who we are. In America, our story has never been about what we can do by ourselves – it’s about what we can do together. It’s about believing in our future and the future of this country. So tell your Members of Congress to do the right thing. Call them up, write them a letter, pay them a visit, and tell them to stop giving tax breaks to people who don’t need them and start investing in the things that will help our economy grow and put people back to work.
That’s how we’ll make this country a little fairer, a little more just, and a whole lot stronger. Thank you.
and their Representative https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
and tell them you want the Buffett Rule passed, NOW.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 31, 2012
WEEKLY ADDRESS: Passing the Buffett Rule so that Everyone Pays Their Fair Share
WASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama calls on Congress to pass the Buffett Rule, a principle of fairness that ensures that millionaires and billionaires do not pay less in taxes as a share of their income than middle class families pay. The President believes our system must ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share, while protecting 98 percent of Americans from seeing their taxes go up at all. That is why the President proposed the Buffett Rule, which will help make our system reflect our values so that all Americans get a fair shot, play by the same rules, and pay their fair share.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
March 31, 2012
Hello.Weekly Address
The White House
March 31, 2012
Over the last few months, I’ve been talking about a choice we face as a country. We can either settle for an economy where a few people do really well and everyone else struggles to get by, or we can build an economy where hard work pays off again – where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. That’s up to us.
Today, I want to talk to you about the idea that everyone in this country should do their fair share.
Now, if this were a perfect world, we’d have unlimited resources. No one would ever have to pay any taxes, and we could spend as much as we wanted. But we live in the real world. We don’t have unlimited resources. We have a deficit that needs to be paid down. And we also have to pay for investments that will help our economy grow and keep our country safe: education, research and technology, a strong military, and retirement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
That means we have to make choices. When it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future, should we ask middle-class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point? Or should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share?
That’s the choice. Over the last decade, we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars on what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Now we’re scheduled to spend almost a trillion more. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary. Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, the tax rates for middle class families have barely budged.
That’s not fair. It doesn’t make any sense. Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? Because we can’t afford to do both.
Now, some people call this class warfare. But I think asking a billionaire to pay at least the same tax rate as his secretary is just common sense. We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it. But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.
That’s the America I believe in. And in the next few weeks, Members of Congress will get a chance to show you where they stand. Congress is going to vote on what’s called the Buffett Rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year – like 98 percent of American families do – your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with the rising cost of everything from college tuition to groceries. You’re the ones who deserve a break.
So every Member of Congress is going to go on record. And if they vote to keep giving tax breaks to people like me – tax breaks our country can’t afford – then they’re going to have to explain to you where that money comes from. Either it’s going to add to our deficit, or it’s going to come out of your pocket. Seniors will have to pay more for their Medicare benefits. Students will see their interest rates go up at a time when they can’t afford it. Families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less.
That’s not right. That’s not who we are. In America, our story has never been about what we can do by ourselves – it’s about what we can do together. It’s about believing in our future and the future of this country. So tell your Members of Congress to do the right thing. Call them up, write them a letter, pay them a visit, and tell them to stop giving tax breaks to people who don’t need them and start investing in the things that will help our economy grow and put people back to work.
That’s how we’ll make this country a little fairer, a little more just, and a whole lot stronger. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)