Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″]I have actually read those. I visit the SSA website pretty regularly.
Of all the problems that the federal government faces, fixing SS is actually the easiest. Raise the SS tax a couple of percentage points, remove the cap on which incomes are taxed and gradually raise the retirement age to 70. Problem solved.
See [url=http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/retirement/saving-social-security.moneymag/]here.[/url][/quote]
A raise of more than a couple of points would be required because as our employment rate is going up the average pay of those who have returned to work has declined greatly (an army of underemployed). And, this loss of social security revenue would be much greater than the revenue it would receive from removing the s.s.tax cap.
Gradually raising the retirement age to 70, for the many who have labored physically all their lives it’s not possible to continue working to that age. But, I suppose, for someone who earns their income sitting behind a desk … I’ll chalk this suggestion up to thoughtlessness and not selfishness.
Being a simple solution … with you having only 5 years remaining until you make the choice as to when to start collecting … and with such proposed changes, if they were to be imposed, not taking effect until after your retirement … heck!!! it sure would be easy since there would be no sacrifices made by or pain felt by you. Selling out the unborn is always the simple easy solution. And, regardless, even with your easy solution, all it would be doing is continuing kicking the can down the road once again! And, that is no solution!!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”VictoriaLST”]SS tax pays for retirement income? Nah – they raided that.[/quote]
So all those folks who get a check every month are just imagining that? Hmmm.[/quote]
I suggest you set aside an hour or so and read this year’s Social Security and SSI’s Annual Reports http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/index.html
http://ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI13/index.html[quote=”sweikert925″]Let’s assume inflation remains low – averaging 3%. After 37 years my age 62 monthly benefit of $1644 would be $5054/month. If I delay til age 70 my $3006 starting benefit would amount to $7296/month. [/quote]
Good idea for you to wait until age 70 to collect that starting monthly payment of $3,006. That will leave in the fictional “lock box” (to go towards covering their payments to me) over $166,000 (8 years of your uncollected age 62 monthly payments of $1,644 assuming a 1.5% COLA).
[quote=”sweikert925″]
Depends on the action. There are legal ways to avoid taxes and there are illegal ones. Investing in a tax shelter is OK, not declaring income so that you don’t have to pay taxes on it is CLEARLY illegal and morally wrong. That’s not even debateable. We’re not talking about those legal means here, are we? [/quote]Those legal means are the ones that are gradually being eliminated and these eliminations are accelerating as the governments’ need for revenues increase. The major league players will always find some legal means of working around the laws and their subsequent changes. But for us, the minor league players, the governments’ have already scraped all the crumbs off our table and are now looking for ways to “pocket” the few crumbs we have left under the table, on the floor.
And then there’s the governments’ use of “If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth”. For example: for many (the non-critical thinking population) the USA government has convinced them it’s better to delay collecting their social security (which is the attempt by the government to not meet its obligation to return to us the money we placed in our annuity account with them). Another act of desperation is the USA government’s creation of the Roth IRA and advising people to convert their traditional IRA into a Roth (thereby converting deferred taxable income into taxable income today).
Changing laws and changing people’s “thinking” … desperate times make for desperate measures.
[quote=”orcas0606″]It really is a huge undertaking for Nicaragua or any other country for that matter but maybe Eden Pastora can move his dredge, “ALBA DE NICARAGUA” when he is finished on the Rio San Juan. This is just another attempt to distract the Nicaraguan people from their misery. Probably the only winners will be Danny Boy, Rosario and maybe a few Chineese guys. Smells like a huge scam to me.[/quote]
Don’t know if it’s true but article says Russia is in on the deal too. “WASHINGTON – As Russia continues to take strategic initiatives that put the United States on the defensive, Russian President Vladimir Putin is teaming up with China to help construct a trans-oceanic canal in Nicaragua that gives Moscow an even greater foothold in Washington’s area of influence.” http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/russia-joins-china-in-building-nicaragua-canal/
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Sweikert925: Curious why you chose to use “Jews” in your primary example instead of some other religious, ethnic, cultural, national or geographical group …[/quote]
I thought that would be obvious: because several of the regulars who post here seem to have a problem with Jews, something I find rather repugnant.[/quote]
Your entire lesson/example doesn’t have anything to do with this thread. It really came out of the far left field. To express this repugnance of yours … how about if/when you have a son, don’t invite them to his bar mitzvah?
[quote=”sweikert925″]But not all subjects of disagreement fit into this category. When basic questions of right and wrong are involved, then there IS a right and wrong answer. It is never right to look down on, hate or otherwise denigrate others based purely on race, nationality or religion.
Every person, no matter what ethnic, religious or racial group they belong to, has the right to be judged individually. There are selfish, greedy, evil, foolish Jews – but there are also kind, altruistic, good and wise Jews. Substitute “Costan Ricans”, “Georgians”, “Floridians”, “Scotsmen”, “New Yorkers” or “Chicagoans” for “Jews” and that previous sentence is just as true.
(I posted this as a separate comment because I wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t specifically directed at sprite.)[/quote]
Sweikert925: Curious why you chose to use “Jews” in your primary example instead of some other religious, ethnic, cultural, national or geographical group …
[quote=”Kwhite1″] Politically Correctness has hit a new high (low), Subway announced in the UK that they will only serve Halal approved bacon to apease the Muslims….wow.[/quote]
Kwhite1, just for the purpose of clarification there is no such thing as “halal” bacon … all pig/pork products are forbidden in the Muslim diet. What subway has done is remove all pork products from their menu and will replace them with other halal meats http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616576/Subway-removes-ham-pork-nearly-200-stores-strong-demand-Muslims-eat-Halal-meat.html
And, I do agree … this is yet another example of political correctness going too too far.
[quote=”sweikert925″] Some people are always going to be afraid of progress, especially some among the old who have lost any sense of optimism for the future.
[/quote]Of the many definitions of the word “progress” are: 1> a movement forward or toward a place, and 2> the process of improving or developing something over a period of time.
For many (both young and old and, even, those somewhere in between) it’s not the “fear” of progress … it’s the knowledge that the process is NOT improving the human condition.
As Winston Churchill said: The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.
[quote=”DENISEINSD”]for those of us who do not know who you are taking about, could you fill us in
thanks[/quote]A.M. Costa Rica’s weekly columnist, Jo Stuart, 84.
[quote=”davidd”]
this was a great move on Roosevelt who I believe enacted this law.. I could be wrong. 😀 [/quote]
Davidd, I think you’ll find this interesting: “Another important feature of the income tax that changed was the return to income tax withholding as had been done during the Civil War. This greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer’s awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20101204034946/http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtmlThe Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an Internet library. Its purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format.
Yes, Scott, our U.S. Passport, under the subject “Important things to remember about your passport” … item 2 … says:
“U.S. Government Property: This passport is the property of the United States Government. Upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States Government, it must be surrendered.”
[quote=”sweikert925″]You’re absolutely right, that was too broad a statement. How about “Some of the rest of us will be mildly interested in who wins.”?[/quote]
Sweik, you not having an investment or stake in Costa Rica (as many of us here do), your attitude doesn’t come as a surprise. And, as Rhett Butler would say about your level of interest, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!”.
[quote=”sweikert925″]
As for the subjectivity of the assessment, I found [url=https://www.welovecostarica.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?messageid=B6726885-24E8-5ED2-F1E2E0E58F7CEC89#B6726885-24E8-5ED2-F1E2E0E58F7CEC89]this comment posted here way back in 2009[/url] that explains why that may be.[/quote]
Quite the disincentive to live frugally within (or beneath ones) means … which, apparently, will, like old soldiers, fade away by 2019. From Tico Times (January 15th) http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/01/15/change-in-calculation-of-monthly-deductions-confuses-cajas-insurance-holders
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”costaricafinca”]Gloria also states that [i]” Since the laws changed a few years back, they are basing monthly Caja on 13% of the amount you use for your residency, so if your monthly Social Security is $1,000, your Caja would be $130/month.” [/i][/quote]
Well I actually spoke to Gloria last time I was there and she admitted that she and Paul were going by what they heard too, and not from any firsthand or even secondhand experience.
I notice that you left out the last sentence of her comment, so I ‘m sure you want me to rectify that:
[i]The raise in rates is unfortunate for new people coming to Costa Rica, but it’s still a lot less than what it would cost in the U.S. for the same coverage.[/i][/quote]
“The same coverage” doesn’t always equate to “the same care” … which is why many, when they become serious ill, return to the US or Canada.
