OT. Social Security record

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:10:35 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You must be a very conflicted person. On the one hand you complain about the national debt and how we're headed for imminent disaster. On the other hand, give you $2K while increasing the debt, borrowing to give it to you and that's just swell.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:15:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4

I have said many times, I think the tax cut, any tax cut, is a bad idea but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90% will do well by it. This really does shaft the top 2 or 3% who live in such a bubble that they think they are in the middle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Well, for someone that thinks it's a bad idea, you sure spend a lot of time defending it.
but I also understand the real middle class, between 50% and 90%

It doesn't hurt the top income earners either. They get a reduction in the top tax rate. You didn't think Trump was going to screw himself, did you? If you have a million in income, you save $26K. Who get screwed? People who had combined deductions, including state and local taxes and charity and health care costs that were worth more than the few hundred bucks tossed to them in the tax cut. Or the poor bastard who's house burns down with no insurance, because that's not deductible anymore. Unless you happen to be in an area that's declared a disaster area. So much for fairness. And the poor stiffs who have to pay alimony. Merry Xmas!
BTW, I see one of the great GOP minds that came up with this awful tax cut just announced he's done too. Orin Hatch won't run. That clears the way for Mitt Romney, who I'm sure the Trump will just love to have in the Senate. I bet Mitt would never have signed this piece of crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:04:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4

I am sure you can cherry pick out the losers on any legislation if you want. The only reason you care is because you assume you are one of them. "few hundred bucks"? They added $1300 to the child tax credit which is worth at least five times as much as a deduction or exemption for most people. They also adjusted the tables down. If someone doesn't insure their home, why is it something the tax payer should be on the hook for? I don't want to pay for their uninsured car or their uninsured medical bills either. If I understand the alimony thing, they just shifted the tax burden to the payer and away from the receiver. If they weren't screwing around, there probably wouldn't be any alimony. If you are making a million, aren't you the ones the democrats want to screw? You still are crying about rich white people's problems, not the real middle class.

Hard to say about Mitt. I have not heard his opinion but wasn't he the one you folks were complaining about for using accounting tricks not to pay taxes? I bet he is doing OK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That;s a lie. I cited specific things that are totally unfair, disgusting and inconsistent with conservatism. For example, telling a family who;s house burned down and all or part of their loss was not covered, screw you. I don't have a burned down house, nor do I need to have one, to know it's fundamentally wrong. So too is eliminating the charitable deduction, while claiming that charity should feed the poor, provide them healthcare. I'd submit that it's YOU that's only interested in what's in it for you. You're the one that keeps saying how happy you are that you're getting $2500. Yet at the same time, you say the country is going broke because of the deficit. Go figure.

No they didn't. They added $1000. The $1300 is the max total amount you can get refunded if your tax credit exceeds the tax you owe. In other words, they give you up to $1300. I thought you were against welfare? That's what it is, a handout if you pay no taxes at all. And in another thread here, you claimed the big problem with pollution and the state of the earth was too many people, so why are we incentivizing people, especially poor people, to have more kids? It should work the other way, the more kids you have the more you cost society, eg for schools, so the more you should pay in tax.
which is

Again, you only focus on the positives and completely ignore the major negatives, eg they eliminated the $4100 per person exemptions! For a family of four, that's a minus $16,4000.
They also adjusted the tables down.

Why should we be on the hook for your extra senior deduction? Maybe you can answer that. Especially if you're well off, have assets, why do you deserve a break every year, but the guy who's house burns down, should pay up? Further, as pointed out many times, if you're in a disaster area as declared by the president, only then can you deduct the loss of your house. Explain to us why the family in Houston gets a break, while the family in Ohio, gets to pay full taxes? It's simply disgusting and indefensible, but welcome to the new Trump Amerika. There was more than enough bad in that bill to vote no.

Yet you want them to pay for your extra senior deduction, every year.
If I understand the alimony thing, they just shifted the

How lame. Now only rich people get divorced? Generally, the spouse paying alimony is going to be in a higher tax bracket than the spouse receiving it. It's going to cost middle class people thousands in extra tax, sending more money to the govt, instead of leaving it with people struggling financially after a divorce. And again, was this ever an issue? Ever brought up during a campaign? No, it's just another evil thing Trump and the GOP did so that they could raise money to give a $260K tax cut to someone making $10 mil.
Unlike you, I don't have to be divorced to know that this is totally wrong.

Again, with the lame "you folks". I'm not a lib, just an honest conservative who isn't worshipping at the cult of Trump and who won't sell out my sole for a clown act and $500.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 06:40:42 -0800 (PST), trader_4

You really need to make up your mind. Either tax treatment is unfair or it's welfare. You have said both in one rant. I don't like Trump and I am not a big fan of this tax cut but I also don't like the lies rich coastal people tell about it, You live in a bubble and you din't have a clue about the real "middle".
OUT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

What lies have I told? Charitable deduction is GONE. Deductibility of a fire loss or similar tragedy, GONE. Deductibility of alimony payments, GONE. Deductibility of state and local taxes above $10K, GONE. Sure, they doubled the std deduction, worth $6K more off your income, for a single, $12K for a couple. The LIES are Trump and the GOP doesn't tell you that at the same time they eliminated the personal exemptions, which were worth $4100 for a single, $8100 for a couple. Sure, a lot of people get something. The rich though, get a lot. Make $10 mil? You just got a $260K cut. And I'd say it's you who don't know about the middle class in many parts of the country. There are middle class people in NJ, NY, CA, earning $100K, paying $10K+ in real estate taxes alone. Just because you don't experience that, or your house burning down, or paying alimony, doesn't make it not so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree he is paying back the people who voted for him and screwing those who didn't but isn't that how politics works? "Elections have consequences" - B.Obama The people in blue states are certainly the ones taking the biggest hit. California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey seem to be getting it the worst and even then we are talking about the top 10%. (people making more than $100k)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2017 10:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I knew a guy that made decisions on whether a kid was autistic or not and had parents pissed off at him when he said they were not autistic because they could not collect for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:03:58 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I was just pointing out that it wasn't 13% off the top that prevented you from investing. Since it was closer to 7% off the top. You probably had no faith in the stock market anyway until it was pumped up with 401k contributions. A working man could rely on a company pension for retirement. All this "If I had taken the SS money and put it in the stock market..." is basically "woulda, coulda, shoulda" talk after the race is over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:

I'd like to point out that men (and women) working at small companies have never had pensions. Little machine shops, repair places, etc. My mother, who worked all of her life, gets by on what she was able to save and on Social Security.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Point taken. Besides that job, hopping (intentional or not) would prevent vesting in a company pension. And some company pensions are paltry. SS is necessary if you don't want old folks starving in the streets. Oddly, the only ones bitching about it are those fortunate enough not to need it. (-:
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/29/2017 1:44 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

Or you could have worked for a large company where the pension vanished when you were ready to retire and the company went belly up. Many people got screwed like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought there was some kind of 'insurance' like that would pay a good portion of the pension if the company went under.
Another was like the Enron (or whatever) that had the 401k tied into their stock. When they went under, there went the 401k money. When the stock started going down, they could not sell the stock. Like some said, never buy much if any stock in the company you work for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:

That would have been some great advice with Intel, MSFT, Apple, Google, Boeing, GE, etc. There have been a whole lot more winners, than the Enron losers. You certainly don't want to have your whole retirement fund in one stock, but having a fairly high exposure in the stock of a company you know and work for as part of a total financial picture, can be an excellent idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 15:08:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4

For the average person, an index fund is probably the right way to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

Only a few larger companies around where I live had pensions.
Even the company I worked for decided to do away with pensions for the newer workeds. For the ones that worked there not long enough to be vested got paid some for the years they worked and that ended their pension. They changed the rules on me when they were bought out and cost me around $ 500 per month.
Lots of places did not even have a 401k or the equal.
The SS and what they could save on their own ws all they had.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:19:14 -0600, Vic Smith

I was still saving 10% of my gross. I just pissed it away buying things like a house and a condo. I would be richer but I was very generous to my ex and that made for a divorce that left us still friends. In the end that was a great investment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com posted for all of us...

+1
Let's face it; did we have a choice to get the money taken from us? In my case it was a big NO. Also remember employers have to pay into it.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2017 02:18 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

Unless you are self employed and have to pay the 'self employment tax'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.