Rob's House Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 It's funny to me that the same people who get off on being vicariously ashamed of how "we" treat our elderly are the same ones who want to syphon off the dividends they live on to fund government largess.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) What is that supposed to mean Rob? I am not ashamed... !@#$ those old bastards, most will be Baby Boomers anyway. I already know a few boomers that already double dipping (working and collecting from the gov't largess AND collecting SS). Yes, that can happen if one is a FERS employee. So !@#$ 'em! The previous generation is all but gone. Edited July 3, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
Rob's House Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 What is that supposed to mean Rob? I am not ashamed... !@#$ those old bastards, most will be Baby Boomers anyway. I already know a few boomers that already double dipping (working and collecting from the gov't largess AND collecting SS). Yes, that can happen if one is a FERS employee. So !@#$ 'em! The previous generation is all but gone. I wish the representatives of your party would speak as openly on the subject as you.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I wish the representatives of your party would speak as openly on the subject as you. My party... Try both parties... The repubs are a little more open though. Anyway... I wish they would too. Speak openly, that is.
Cinga Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 What is that supposed to mean Rob? I am not ashamed... !@#$ those old bastards, most will be Baby Boomers anyway. I already know a few boomers that already double dipping (working and collecting from the gov't largess AND collecting SS). Yes, that can happen if one is a FERS employee. So !@#$ 'em! The previous generation is all but gone. wow... kettle, meet pot... this post is the most ignorant I have ever read on here...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 wow... kettle, meet pot... this post is the most ignorant I have ever read on here... Why kettle meet pot? I am set up to do the right thing when I reach an ancient age.
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Why kettle meet pot? I am set up to do the right thing when I reach an ancient age. Why don't you do it now and save us all the grief.
Cinga Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Why kettle meet pot? I am set up to do the right thing when I reach an ancient age. like what?? live off SS??? That sounds like that is what you expect seniors now to be able to do!!! Your comment certainly disparages anyone that worked their a55 off all their lives, invested wisely, and now, depend on those dividends to live a decent life in retirement, aside from the meager SS benefits. TAKE IT!!! They don't need it after all!!! Go away now....
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 There wouldn't be no grief now or then. There is no point. What is this grief you talk about?
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) What is that supposed to mean Rob? I am not ashamed... !@#$ those old bastards, most will be Baby Boomers anyway. I already know a few boomers that already double dipping (working and collecting from the gov't largess AND collecting SS). Yes, that can happen if one is a FERS employee. So !@#$ 'em! The previous generation is all but gone. How can it possibly be considered double dipping? Social Security, as it is legislated, is not a welfare state social program, it's a nanny state social program. That "money", while not in an earmarked account, has been payed into as a retirement investment account the entire working life of the legally employed citizen. The government itself sets the rules for drawing on the account, and those withdrawals, in many cases are taxable income. It is not the fault of the citizen that he was forced to pay into the "account" all his life, and then given rules for the expected use of his own money. It is not the citizen's fault that the funding is done entirely by wizards and faeries. Infact, the federal government makes these sorts of demands on almost all retirement accounts. IRA's, qualified employer funded plans, annuities, ect. all demand that the owner begin taking required minimum distributions at the age of 70 1/2 or they must pay a hefty tax penalty of 50% of the demanded withdrawal's value. However, your view even manages to ignore the practical reality that many who are still working into their 60's are older with increasing medical expenses, and many who have not properly planned need to continue to work well into their retirements. Your indignation harnesses either ignorance or a lack of decency. Edited July 3, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 like what?? live off SS??? That sounds like that is what you expect seniors now to be able to do!!! Your comment certainly disparages anyone that worked their a55 off all their lives, invested wisely, and now, depend on those dividends to live a decent life in retirement, aside from the meager SS benefits. TAKE IT!!! They don't need it after all!!! Go away now.... You mean work for the US gov't collecting a full working wage AND collect SS at the same time. That isn't how the system was set up. That is what I am talking about. How can it possibly be considered double dipping? Social Security, as it is legislated, is not a welfare state social program, it's a nanny state social program. That "money", while not in an earmarked account, has been payed into as a retirement investment account the entire working life of the legally employed citizen. The government itself sets the rules for drawing on the account, and those withdrawals, in many cases are taxable income. It is not the fault of the citizen that he was forced to pay into the "account" all his life, and then given rules for the expected use of his own money. It is not the citizen's fault that the funding is done entirely by wizards and faeries. Infact, the federal government makes these sorts of demands on almost all retirement accounts. IRA's, qualified employer funded plans, annuities, ect. all demand that the owner begin taking required minimum distributions at the age of 70 1/2 or they must pay a hefty tax penalty of 50% of the demanded withdrawal's value. However, your view even manages to ignore the practical reality that many who are still working into their 60's are older with increasing medical expenses, and many who have not properly planned need to continue to work well into their retirements. Your indignation harnesses either ignorance or a lack of decency. Lack of decency.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) You mean work for the US gov't collecting a full working wage AND collect SS at the same time. That isn't how the system was set up. That is what I am talking about. When the Federal Government contracts with private businesses it creates this situation. There is nothing shady about it, other than the initial employment contract. Lack of decency. At least you're being honest. Edited July 3, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 There wouldn't be no grief now or then. There is no point. What is this grief you talk about? You libs truly have no sense of humor.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 When the Federal Government contracts with private businesses it creates this situation. There is nothing shady about it, other than the initial employment contract. Forget the contracting... They work directly for the federal gov't. You libs truly have no sense of humor. I have a great sense of humor... You just don't know how to read it... :-P
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 Forget the contracting... They work directly for the federal gov't. You're going to have to give me examples of their employment history, and duties, noting any SS taxes they may have payed into the system.
Doc Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 For exactly that reason... It paints Romney into a corner he's trying desperately to distance himself from. It's politics 101. Call out any and all hypocritical statements made by your opponent to attempt to paint them as something other than what they are. Not saying it'll work. But imagine if the GOP had a candidate without that kind of baggage. Then they could launch a full scale attack on the ACA and Obama without looking like a fool. Paint Romney into what corner? He's always maintained that it is a state's right, not a federal right. And what Mass wanted/needed wasn't what would work for the rest of the country. He'll talk about the percentage of people who opposed and still oppose Obamacare, and point out that people wanted Romneycare before it was implemented and still do. He'll also say that costs haven't gone down and are still the highest in the nation, and is where Obamacare could take the country.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) You're going to have to give me examples of their employment history, and duties, noting any SS taxes they may have payed into the system. FERS employee working the last 23 years, now turns 65 and collects SS. Not CSRS employee. All federal employees after and around '84ish have been under the FERS system... Which means they kick into SS like everybody else. I must be really naive, I never thought it possible to still be working and collect SS... Depending on how much you make... It is like what? A 2000 buck month raise? That ain't right? They are hogging the jobs for the younger generation while working a job that they because of age are less productive at! Edited July 3, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 You're going to have to give me examples of their employment history, and duties, noting any SS taxes they may have payed into the system. Wading through the bs here is most of the problem. As far as I know, you can't collect SS without severe penalties if you make over a nominal amount until you reach a certain age. I believe that age where you can make all you want and still collect SS is either 67 or 70. So EiI is just throwing out a canard. You said you've been lurking here for awhile so you understand the dynamics here. Basically most libs refuse to give specifics and when pressed use anecdotes rather than real facts. In another thread Romney was criticized for KB Toys issues when he had left Bain quite awhile prior to their folding up camp. The excuse for using that example had to do with something along the lines that he must have used the same practices. (I'm not arguing the practices one way or the other here) Anyway, again, welcome to the board. Your posts so far have been good posts.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Paint Romney into what corner? He's always maintained that it is a state's right, not a federal right. And what Mass wanted/needed wasn't what would work for the rest of the country. He'll talk about the percentage of people who opposed and still oppose Obamacare, and point out that people wanted Romneycare before it was implemented and still do. He'll also say that costs haven't gone down and are still the highest in the nation, and is where Obamacare could take the country. Yeah... Because health is so different in varying states. Healthcare should be uniform among all states... So it is not a dividing point when states try and compete for business with other states. Healthcare should not be a bargaining option. Wading through the bs here is most of the problem. As far as I know, you can't collect SS without severe penalties if you make over a nominal amount until you reach a certain age. I believe that age where you can make all you want and still collect SS is either 67 or 70. So EiI is just throwing out a canard. You said you've been lurking here for awhile so you understand the dynamics here. Basically most libs refuse to give specifics and when pressed use anecdotes rather than real facts. In another thread Romney was criticized for KB Toys issues when he had left Bain quite awhile prior to their folding up camp. The excuse for using that example had to do with something along the lines that he must have used the same practices. (I'm not arguing the practices one way or the other here) Anyway, again, welcome to the board. Your posts so far have been good posts. Maybe I am... Maybe it is rumor... But from what I hear, some that reach 65 are doing this? How would you find out the truth without invading privacy? Ask OPM? Edited July 3, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yeah... Because health is so different in varying states. Healthcare should be uniform among all states... So it is not a dividing point when states try and compete for business with other states. Healthcare should not be a bargaining option. Maybe I am... Maybe it is rumor... But from what I hear, some that reach 65 are doing this? How would you find out the truth without invading privacy? Ask OPM? So, maybe you are posting rumors as fact?
Recommended Posts