Social Security Changes

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

Tech, you could have saved yourself some attack time by reading the earlier posts. For reference my post of suggestions was number 225. It may be gramatically incorrect to quote oneself, but that's the only way I can put that info into a response.

I didn't realize this was a quiz.

Mostly ok, but not #4, 5, or 6 (wife is an attorney she says tort reform is just a red herring).

Also, definition of "income" should be broadened to include more assets.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

All of the able bodied. Do you disagree?

Yep.

[RustyJC]

Just a couple of points to ponder from Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Volume 1 of Democracy in America was published in 1835; Volume 2 was published in 1840.

Rusty

[Lindsay Richards]

Yep.

No surprise that you think able bodied people don't need to work and that they should be supported by those that do work and are heavily taxed already. You might be interested to read the linked article below how the UK started a new program that able bodied folks on the dole (English term) had to do 30 hrs a week doing community service or lose their money. Working well, 1/3 of the recipients declined and chose not to work at all.


British leaders launch crackdown on job-seekers' allowance | The Daily Caller

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

I didn't realize this was a quiz.

Mostly ok, but not #4, 5, or 6 (wife is an attorney she says tort reform is just a red herring).

Also, definition of "income" should be broadened to include more assets.

How about a why to your choices. I understand your reluctance to have tort reform come into the picture. I have yet to find an attorney who thinks that tort reform is needed even though many of us have been victimized by the lack of tort reform. Also income and assets are two very, very different items.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

No surprise that you think able bodied people don't need to work and that they should be supported by those that do work and are heavily taxed already. You might be interested to read the linked article below how the UK started a new program that able bodied folks on the dole (English term) had to do 30 hrs a week doing community service or lose their money. Working well, 1/3 of the recipients declined and chose not to work at all.


British leaders launch crackdown on job-seekers' allowance | The Daily Caller

Oops, sorry, Lindsey. I thought you texted that ALL welfare recipents were able bodied.

You just said all who are able bodied.

Let's call it a draw -- I misread and you dodged my question.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

How about a why to your choices. I understand your reluctance to have tort reform come into the picture. I have yet to find an attorney who thinks that tort reform is needed even though many of us have been victimized by the lack of tort reform. Also income and assets are two very, very different items.

#4 (disability status) -- I would hope that there are other loopholes to close before going after this one.

#5 (politicians) - This one is silly.

#6 (Medicare) - Ok, so you opt out of Medicare. What do you get in return? Plus, if you opt out & spend all of your Health Savings, can you opt back in? Or does your family just drop you off at the local emergency room and the city/county/state/feds pick up the tab?

Tort reform - I laugh at lawyer jokes, too, but after you've seen a couple of product liability cases, you might change your opinion on tort reform. The issue is a red herring.

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

#4 (disability status) -- I would hope that there are other loopholes to close before going after this one.

#5 (politicians) - This one is silly.

#6 (Medicare) - Ok, so you opt out of Medicare. What do you get in return? Plus, if you opt out & spend all of your Health Savings, can you opt back in? Or does your family just drop you off at the local emergency room and the city/county/state/feds pick up the tab?

Tort reform - I laugh at lawyer jokes, too, but after you've seen a couple of product liability cases, you might change your opinion on tort reform. The issue is a red herring.

Let's see, 30% of all those who draw SS are drawing disability. I have a client who is getting disability because he got too fat to work. So what you are saying is that it is perfectly all right to make lifestyle choices so you don't HAVE to work and so that you can just go on the public dole. I have another client who is on SSI and he was doing a cash job for a guy and he fell off the ladder so now he is suing the contractor and the home owner. But again, it's perfectly okay for those rip offs. Those that are truly disabled should be able to draw. Those that aren't should NOT be able to draw. I see rental properties as being a great dodge for the supposedly disabled. It is not considered "earned income" so it doesn't count against SS disability. That loophole needs to be closed and it's bigger than you might think. It would also add many folks to the roles of those paying SS taxes.

Perhaps if you would read through this thread instead of just attacking then you might realize that many Americans look upon SS as an annuity. Read through the thread, you may actually learn something.

As to the "red herring" of tort reform, well you'd better read up on the abuses of attorneys which from where I am seem like they at least equal, if not exceed those of corporations. I was sued by a jerk because I would NOT prepare a fraudulent tax return for him. Some scumbag attorney took the case and I eventually won, but it cost me $60,000. One of my clients had an employee who claims to have gotten hurt on the job. Their legal fees were just over $300,000 because some attorney got greedy. And you really don't think tort reform is needed? That is just incredible! I wonder how much of a red herring you would think tort reform is if you would have been attacked by a thief in a three piece suit!

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by alba07

This is what scares me about people like you taxman. You are not even aware of how offensive you have been.

Alba, please tell me where I have been offensive to you or anyone else. So far I thought this discussion had been pretty civilized. We have had disagreements and everyone has shared what their thoughts were and moved on. I did not make any wise guy remarks like "I didn't know this was a quiz," or anything remotely like that. I have not engaged in any personal attacks until I was attacked. So if I have been offensive to you or anyone else, please let me know where and I do apologize for any remarks that you may have been offended by.

[Lindsay Richards]

So tell me why you think able bodied welfare recipients should not be required to work. Doing day care for those who do work would be good. It used to work that way. You obviously didn't read the article about the UK.

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

We live in a very complex world

You said a mouthful, taxman!

Now , begging everyone's indulgence, I'd like to ask Taxman to apply his expertise to a question relevant to this subject that may well relate to my very own situation:

Is it true that when a person that's been married several times dies, the surviving spouses and ex-spouses are each entitled to the full amount of the Social Security Survivor's check, so long as each marriage lasted a minimum of seven years?

My Mother always swore that after my Dad died, not only did she get a full monthly check, my Dad's second wife did, too.

Is that possible????????

Thanks!

P.S.

Hey, Mods!

If you're considering thread closure, could you please please wait until Taxman answers my question? I'm really curious about what looks to me like double-dipping, and since I myself am a second wife I'm faced with the potential choice of whether or not to become guilty of doing it myself!

Talk about a moral dilemma...

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by Francesca

You said a mouthful, taxman!

Now , begging everyone's indulgence, I'd like to ask Taxman to apply his expertise to a question relevant to this subject that may well relate to my very own situation:

Is it true that when a person that's been married several times dies, the surviving spouses and ex-spouses are each entitled to the full amount of the Social Security Survivor's check, so long as each marriage lasted a minimum of seven years?

My Mother always swore that after my Dad died, not only did she get a full monthly check, my Dad's second wife did, too.

Is that possible????????

Thanks!

P.S.

Hey, Mods!

If you're considering thread closure, could you please please wait until Taxman answers my question? I'm really curious about what looks to me like double-dipping, and since I myself am a second wife I'm faced with the potential choice of whether or not to become guilty of doing it myself!

Talk about a moral dilemma...

You are correct that an ex spouse will collect the greater of their own SS or half of their ex-spouses as long as they were married at least 10 years. The amounts drawn by the ex-spouse or spouses does not have any effect on the amount the other will draw.

Did that answer your question?

[greystroke]

This thread is becoming so hot my screen is starting to melt...LOL

[Route 66]

Time out folks.

The personal comments and attacks will have to stop.

A spirited discussion is OK, but discuss the issue, not each other.