"Dave Dodson" <dave_and_darla[at]Juno.com> wrote in message
news:1137593461.068140.317360[at]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

A valid thought most certainly, but I do believe that this thread has
deviated considerably from the concept of the NG.
This discussion on the relative merits of Social entitlements should
be taken to another NG (sorry I do not know which one).
Cal


let's get back to the merits of Life Insurance in Financial Planning ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
Cal

Don wrote:
- quote -

When you say "people are entitled to," you are indicating that everyone
either has a claim on other people's time or on other people's money.
I.e., if I am "entitled" to medical care, then some doctor has use his
time to treat me without compensation (if I cannot or will not pay) or
someone (other than me if I cannot or will not pay) has to pay him. Are
you sure that you want to say that people are "entitled" to medical
care? There are some pretty anti-capitalistic repercussions to the
statement.

Dave

"Tess Millay" <elle_navorski[at]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v5bzf.9086$ZA2.7951[at]newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

- quote -

True, but there are also many medical conditions that have nothing to do
with irresponsible living, and lots of good responsible people take that hit
on their savings. Anyway, I like to think that even irresponsible people are
entitled to medical care.

- quote -

I agree 100%. Such effort can have more impact on one's future financial
security than searching for the latest best performing mutual fund.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote
- quote -

You really feel that way?

I think many medical conditions taking a huge hit on
people's savings accounts are a result of irresponsible
living. For example, obesity (which is linked to diabetes,
which I believe is striking record numbers of people),
drinking (causing not just disease but, say, car accidents),
and smoking.

- quote -

I am still convinced that most U.S. citizens will be
extremely critical of a national health plan until a
generation or two passes. U.S. society has become
overwhelmingly entrenched in the belief that more is
necessarily better, including more medical treatments,
procedures, etc. Since insured folks don't directly foot the
bill for medical care, they tend not to be careful consumers
in the least. So a lot of shady practices seem to abound
(according to media reports) when it comes to medical care,
all to make a buck for hospitals, ultimately insurers, etc.

So, to keep this on track, as been said here increasingly in
the last few years, part of one's financial planning should
include taking care of one's health and researching the
medical care one receives, be it checking for generic drugs
or checking for alternative, more efficacious, medical
procedures.

bo peep writes:
- quote -

The web page you gave talks about reduction in social security benefits
due to working. I'm talking about income taxes. You can check it out in
the instructions for Form 1040. If you are married filing jointly and
your "provisional income" is above $44,000, then each additional dollar
of income that you choose to take from an ordinary IRA is taxable, and
it causes an additional $0.85 of your social security to be taxable.
Thus, your rate on that additional dollar is your marginal rate applied
to $1.85. This continues until all of your social security is taxed,
then your tax rate on additional income returns to your marginal rate.
It's the truth.

Dave

Posters are asked to remember that this is a (personal) financial
planning forum.

Posts dealing with other issues such as the future and adequacy of
Social Security, the need for government-provided health care, etc.
should be directed elsewhere.

As usual, comments on newsgroup policy should be directed to the
moderators and not to the newsgroup.

Thank you for your cooperation.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

"Frank" <Frank[at]nospammindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dzYyf.446$rH5.11[at]newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

- quote -

Quite true. The issue has nothing to do with personal independence,
financial responsibility, planning for the future, etc. All of these
wonderful things can be quickly negated by a medical crisis. Other nations
have been able to provide workable insurance plans and quality care to their
citizens without the sky falling in, and the US will have to do it one of
these days.

"Tess Millay" <elle_navorski[at]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:53Xyf.713$vU2.571[at]newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

- quote -

Medicare coverage is only part of the issue. A vast number of younger people
have no medical insurance at all, and they don't always wait until becoming
elderly before getting sick. Hoardes of younger people show up at emergency
rooms as the only way to get treatment when it is needed, and many never pay
the bills. Also, existing medical conditions can become worse over time
because of lack of treatment in the early stages.

<<If you collect Social Security, and your "provisional income" (your
income plus half of your Social Security income) is in a certain range,
an additional dollar of taxable income, e.g., from your pension or IRA
causes $1.50 to become subject to income tax at your marginal rate.>
That doesn't sound right - where are you getting this information?

At
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/...i=&p_topview=1
it states:

"Earned income is defined as income from wages or net earnings from
self-employment. Pensions, 401K distributions, dividends, interest, and
IRA distributions are NOT earned income."

John Cowart

zxcvbob wrote:
- quote -

The 30%, 65%, and 35% in your comment are not quite right, but this
already happens. If you collect Social Security, and your "provisional
income" (your income plus half of your Social Security income) is in a
certain range, an additional dollar of taxable income, e.g., from your
pension or IRA causes $1.50 to become subject to income tax at your
marginal rate. In a higher bracket, that extra dollar of income causes
$1.85 to be taxable. If you are in the 25% rate, that makes your
effective tax rate on that additional dollar either 37.5% or 46.25%.

The net effect of this additional taxation:
Single:
$25,000 to $34,000 increases the tax rate to 1.5 times your marginal
rate
$34,000 to ?? increases the tax rate to 1.85 times your
marginal rate

Married filing Jointly:
$32,000 to $44,000 increases the tax rate to 1.5 times your marginal
rate
$44,000 to ?? increases the tax rate to 1.85 times your
marginal rate

The taxation will only get worse since the bracket points are not
indexed to inflation.

Dave

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote
- quote -

Agreed, generally speaking. But this then begs a few
questions about what exactly happened. Jason, was your
grandmother not old enough to be covered by Medicare? Or did
Medicare actually not cover the bulk of her bills?

Aside to Don: I realize you may simply be asserting that
Medicare is not a "decent" enough plan. OTOH, the reports I
get is that it's pretty darn good, new prescription drug
"Rubik's cube indecipherable for many educated folks (never
mind the plebes)" benefit aside.

Don wrote:

- quote -

I agree, it wasn't Social Security that failed, he is still
receiving Social Security.

It is medical bills, particularly prior to eligibility
for Medicare, that are forcing people into bankruptcy.

Even with insurance(if the person can afford it) the
bills can run through millions of dollars for a chronic
debilitating disease or injury. Insurance generally has
benefit maximums and limits on coverage.

The affordability of health care is truly the U.S.'s
greatest challenge and greatest threat to its society.
No amount of retirement planning by an individual can
solve the health care issue, unless you are Bill Gates
and have relatively unlimited funds.

And how disillusioning and frustrating to work and
save for retirement and end up on public assistance
anyway due to health care costs.

Frank

- quote -

I don't think that this will be "the problem". Instead I suspect
we will just continue on printing as in the past. The continuing
inflation will drain most qualified plans in fixed income
instruments and the inflation will also take down stocks.

So whatever is in qualified plans will already be mostly gone.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...tch071305.html
http://www.zealllc.com/2005/stockinf.htm

In article <dqhhvt$bjq$1[at]domitilla.aioe.org> ,
"cal lester" <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

For elderly folks, the get Medicare Part A, and can purchase
Medicare Part B for under $100/month. That seems like a lot
of medical coverage for a comparitively small amount of money.

Granted US healthcare costs are high, but then again, we are
a very rich nation full of high income earners. Just compare
the US per capita income with places like India, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, etc.

I agree that the healthcare system could be better. But as
it stands, it is pretty good. The people seem to like it. If
they didn't they would vote for more candidates who are in
favor of a new healthcare system. Just look at what the right
wing did to President Clinton when he suggested a national
health care system. Nobody is going to make that mistake again.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Andy wrote:
- quote -


I think we're saying the same thing.

Suppose you are retired and your marginal tax rate is 30%. But your
401(k) and traditional IRA withdrawls get taxed at 65% to subsidize the
SS Trust Fund, Welfare, or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, or
whatever other social program is in financial ruin due to someone else's
mismanagement. Wouldn't you say that 35% of your retirement savings was
being stolen?

Qualified accounts are a more attractive target because they haven't
been taxed yet, whether the thieves acknowledge that or not.

(I hope I'm wrong about this)

Best regards,
Bob

"Andy" <ineverevercheckthismailbox[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137454690.615720.112310[at]o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

HEAR HEAR...
Cal

"John A. Weeks III" <john[at]johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-82302A.17203016012006[at]sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
- quote -




Medical care
- quote -


This was the only portion of your post that I could not accept.
Health care in the United States is the most expensive in the
entire world.
Universal Health (paid for by the government) is an excellent
concept (I can attest to having been a recipient of it while in
Europe a few years ago), however, it would put a damper on
Medical Science. Experimentation is expensive, but without
it, there is little improvement.
Cal Lester CLU

zxcvbob wrote:

- quote -

I don't think there is a realistic risk that politicians will literally
steal money in tax-deferred accounts on the grounds that "its not
really yours." However, I wouldn't at all be surprised if in a few
decades the pressure of social security obiligations and other fiscal
responsibilities lead congress to tax withdrawels from tax deferred
accounts at rates that would seem unreasonably high to us today. That
is why I don't do all my retirement saving in tax deferred accounts
like 401(k)s.

Andy

John A. Weeks III wrote:

- quote -

Actually, to be precise, younger people have it better today than at
any other point in history. Up until recent times it was the
obligation of the children to support their elderly parents. The
changes you describe have allowed adult children to spend their time
and resources on themselves and their own children instead of on their
elderly parents.

Andy

In article <1137444618.663609.19090[at]g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
iarwain_8[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

You cannot be serious. Look back in history to see how life was
in the past. Social security was created because old people were
living in the streets with nothing to eat and no way to earn money.
Social security was a put in as a last chance safety net to keep
old people from starving. It wasn't meant as a national pension
plan. In fact, when social security was created, it was pretty
rare to live to 65. Even as late as 1950, life expectancy for a
male was 65. That is why that age was picked--because there were
so few of them.

Rewind another few decades, during the age of the robber
barons. There was no health insurance. Work was dangerous,
and if you got hurt, there was a line of men waiting to take
your job. One strike and you were out. Life expectancy at
the turn of the century was in the 40's, or if you were black,
the early 30's. You didn't have to worry about old age since
there was small pox, yellow fever, cholera, dysentery, polio,
gout, and cancer, none of which had effective treatments.
Death during child birth was common, for both the mother and
the child.

Rewind further into history. The life of a serf, which was
about 95% of the population, has been described as miserable,
brutal, and short. Serfs were under the total control of
their lord, able to be called for battle at any time, and
had to work almost every waking minute of the day to keep
up with their responsibilities to the lord and feed their
own family. The concept of elder care did not exist.

The way I see it, elderly folks have it better today than
at any point in history. First off, we have elderly people,
which was rare in the past. Second, life is getting better
for them according to life expectancy, up 7 years since 1980.
Third, due to a dramatic run up in hosing values and the
great stock market returns of the 90's, many elderly are
retiring with a surprising amount of wealth. Medical care
is available at a resonable cost or almost free, and a universal
government pension is available to almost everyone over 65.

I don't see what more anyone could expect.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================