BenedictGomez
Well-known member
There are early studies that show it's less, but it still does its' primary job of making threat of hospitalization & death low.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Vermont Skier Visits Down Significantly Due to COVID-19
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
There are early studies that show it's less, but it still does its' primary job of making threat of hospitalization & death low.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
You "forego" getting back some of what was taken from you against your will? No thanks. How bout' we just get rid of the most personally financially destructive program in US history & call it a day.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
This is a failing of the public education system, not the healthcare system.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
America just achieved a big COVID19 vaccination milestone; 50% of the USA is now fully vaccinated.*
*Data through July 30, 2021
*Data through July 30, 2021
Smellytele
Well-known member
Still sad it’s only 50%
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I figured we'd wouldnt do better than 60%'ish. Even in really bad flu years we dont do much better than 40%. Keep in mind, anyone from birth to age 12 is precluded from vaccination, so that artificially makes the 50% seem worse than it really is.
EDIT: I was curious about this so I looked it up. Under 18 is about 22% of the population. Assuming a normalized distribution, that is 15% of the population which cannot be vaxxed, meaning 100% of the potential bogey is actually about 85%. So in reality, at "50% fully vaccinated", it means that 59% of the country who CAN be vaccinated, has been fully vaccinated. That's not far off from my WAG.
Last edited:
drjeff
Well-known member
Not really.
The side effects from the vaccines, are almost universally across the board at a lower rate than the side effects from one getting COVID.
Again in both circumstances, the side effects are EXTREMELY low, and yes, there are certainly outlying individuals with significant underlying conditions that are affected more than the majority of the population
Killing social security? Despite it's flaws, very unpopular opinion to get rid of it. It's a system that works well enough and many rely on it
Propose something really good if you want to cut it down. Show reform that will produce a better return. That's the sell
Why y'all get so pissed off about the program anyway?
Does it root in being unhappy with your net income?
No matter my income level in life, that 6.2% tax ledger line on my pay stub has always been ignored. It's actually the one tax I do not mind paying because of what the money is supposed to go towards, even if the process and ROI is poor.
It's designed to help all Americans. And it does pretty much for everyone at some point. Same goes for Medicare taxes.
I get a little more upset about the other 20+% of my check that I have no idea what it's getting spent on.
Few people are for SS until they start collecting.
abc
Well-known member
SS will never be touched.
The trouble of SS is it being paid for by the younger generation. So those who already paid, naturally refuse to forego collecting on it!
But to be able to pay out, it need to “take” from the younger generation.
The cycle continues.
The trouble of SS is it being paid for by the younger generation. So those who already paid, naturally refuse to forego collecting on it!
But to be able to pay out, it need to “take” from the younger generation.
The cycle continues.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
It's only "unpopular" if you phrase is that way, because as abc noted, who the hell would vote to get rid of it after they're had their money confiscated their entire life. Nobody. If you ask it in a manner that says "would you rather keep an extra >6% of your paycheck for your entire life", you get an affirmative response. Not my point anyway. The reality is SS does not "work" financially from a sustainability perspective, but that's not my point either. My point is it's a terribly destructive program financially & completely economically inefficient. It's simply idiotic & should be unconstitutional, but alas that battle was lost decades ago.
You quoted and responded to the wrong portion of my post. You simply took the opportunity to whine some more.
This is the part you anti-SS whiners need to answer to effectively.
"Propose something really good if you want to cut it down. Show reform that will produce a better return. That's the sell"
You never do. It's always a lament about how you as financially brilliant individuals can manage money better than the government. Well no shit, many of us can and do. Many cannot though.
Its $8853.60 a year max. That's the good thing about the tax vs others. There's a cap.
On a scale of 1 to 10 regarding everything I get taxed on in life that prevents me from investing that potential additional take home income how I normally would? What I pay in SS tax rates a 1 on the scale.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
No.
It's forced confiscation against people's will. The fact it's financially destructive just makes it worse, but I would certainly not replace one form of confiscation for another, that's the point you fail to understand. My "plan" would be to not have any such program taking wages against people's will. At the very least people should be able to opt out, but of course that would bankrupt the program even sooner than currently modeled. Yeah, such a great program which may only exist when people are mandatorily forced to be a part of it!
Your comment on SS tax being a 1 on a scale of 10 is mathematically naïve too, it's 6.2% of your paycheck! Every paycheck. For life. It is unfortunately, extremely meaningful, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
abc
Well-known member
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Yes, that would be decades ago.
Your desire to start arguments on "teh inturnetz" is truly unrivaled.
abc
Well-known member
Not only was he "financially brilliant", wasn't he also a brilliant immunologist on the pandemic too?
If you can't propose a better solution then just STFU already and quit whining about it
Do better in life such that the 6.2% SS tax (again capped at 142k income) doesn't bum you out so much.
You constantly swing dick on here about how financially brilliant you are with investing. If that's the case, you wouldn't be so pissed off about that 6.2% because you're making a satisfactory amount of returns on the money you do have to invest with the net income you have to work with.
You probably should be more angry at your employer or career choice not paying you what you feel you're worth than getting bent out of shape over that 6.2%. I basically view that 6.2% like some of the bond products I have in my portfolio. They don't excite me very much, but it's not lost money and will reliably be there for me when I stop working.
Every paycheck until $142k income Then you don't pay it anymore for the rest of the year. Again, that's the good thing about it. It's capped. All of the other income taxes I pay go UP and UP the more I make. So those rate a 9 for me to be concerned about vs the 1 I rate SS tax.
drjeff
Well-known member
Just curious as to how many years out of 10, that you feel that the return on any private retirement investments you may have, out preform what you're perceived return on the withholdings from your paycheck the government takes from you and then your employer matches that?
Pretty sure that I would say that 9yrs out of 10, my private retirement investments outperform my perceived SS withholdings/"investments". And that's before the employer side of my brain effects the thought process of my employee side of my brain as well.
Would "Joe Q Public" be better off with the amount of their SS contributions with employee match in a private say 401k vs in what in theory atleast is their own, personal, SS "account"? I certainly think so over the entire course of one's say 40yr or so work career...
Hard question to answer because standard investments result in a finite amount of cash where as SS not only lasts until the end of your life, it can also benefit your spouse until the end of their life too. If you work up until full retirement age at 67 and you and your spouse only live to the average age of say 77, then SS wouldn't appear to be that great of a return. But if one or both of you make it well into your 90s, it does look like a pretty good return. SS also can't get crushed in a market crash like a 401k or other investments can.
Similar threads
