At 03:01 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:25:36 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches
it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!!
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:29:13 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only to the extent that paying taxes can be described as paying dues.
But Social Security taxes are collected separately from other taxes
because they are specifically for retirement/disability. The fact that
the funds are used
On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:29 PM, JDG wrote:
At 03:01 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
I understand that and have been supportive of many of the reforms you and
others have mentioned. John's statement made it sound as if people
receiving SS are living completely off of the largess of the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:03 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Ah, but who takes care of the full-time doctor and nurse
Physician, heal thyself . . .
--
Ronn! :)
IMPORTANT:
As many of you know, I am in Happy Valley and so have to read and answer my
mail on the web site,
and is very limited in its capabilities.
(1) Please pardon me for top-posting. The web site does not allow for any other
option.
(2) If
Erik Reuter wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We're a great, wealthy, generous country: we can figure out how to
take care of each other.
We might be able to figure it out, but we won't be able to pay for it.
Many people seem to think that medical care should just be given to
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Erik Reuter wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We're
Erik Reuter wrote:
We might be able to figure it out, but we won't be able to pay for it.
Many people seem to think that medical care should just be given to
those who need it. Perhaps we should assign a full-time personal doctor
and full-time nurse to take care of everyone in the world!
--
Erik
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It would clearly be the lady with the alligator purse.
Everybody forgets about that poor alligator...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:06 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote:
Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable
problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one
will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be
either unwilling or unable to
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches
it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!!
Besides being wrong here about the number, the actual amount going to SS
is not enough (even if it really were saved) to provide
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:25:36 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches
it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!!
Besides being wrong here about the number, the actual amount
Erik Reuter wrote:
The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years.
No. COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index, which is based on a
market basket of goods.
Although there are plenty of people who argue that the CPI is biased upward, the problem with it
relative to the actual cost
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:45 AM
Subject: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Erik Reuter wrote:
The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years
Dan Minette wrote:
That's true, but the initial benefits are not based on COLA.
Wasn't the subject at hand the *increases* in benefits?
Are you guys talking about increases in initial benefits only, not COLAs? The Primary Insurance
Amounts?
Then Erik is right, but in only one sense. Benefits
William T Goodall wrote:
Living costs is one thing, medical care is another. Yes, no?
Medicare doesn't cover a lot of medical costs.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
William T Goodall wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005, at 11:56 pm, Robert Seeberger wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you and Erik, but I think Nick is also
correct. It seems to me that the Cost Of Being Old is rising
dramatically, and the main causes are due to the rising health
costs
that are effecting
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I used to not pay for medication at all. Then for a few years I had
a 10$ co-pay for pretty much every drug. Now I have a 30$ co-pay and
many drugs are not covered at all.
That is a GOOD thing. Small costs that people can pay for should
definitely
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for your meds?
Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse?
I could be
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for your meds?
Isn't that
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't care to discuss anything further.
You call what you were doing discussing? Ha!
Aren't you overdue for
At 01:24 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Yes, you and I definitely helped build tomorrow's economy. I have no shame
in receiving Social Security. But, there is a limit on how much I feel I
can ask of my kids to support me in turn. Further, even if I don't have
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
*Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child.
Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most
effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children
at that stage of development cannot be reasoned
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
*Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child.
Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most
effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children at
that stage of
JDG wrote:
Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable
problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one
will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be
either unwilling or unable to work in order to fund that
Doug Pensinger wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable
problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one
will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be
either unwilling or unable to work in order
Julia wrote:
So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches
it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!!
Actually, you're just putting in 6.2% and your employer is matching it
for a total of 12.4%
D'oh!
--
Doug
___
28 matches
Mail list logo
