Category Archives: pension

There’s little love in Paris this Springtime, as French President uses executive power to crush labor rights

Best of times for very rich; worst for the working class!

France’s President Francois Hollande has learned many lessons on how to offer false promises from America’s President Barack Obama, who campaigned in 2008 with the following plans:

  • convince the working class you stand for better wages and stronger unions
  • say you will reduce  job competition by ending reckless import of foreign labor
  • suggest you will renegotiate current income-lowering trade deals that send factories overseas
  • pledge to cut outsourcing jobs to new trade “partners”
  • offer to increase social benefits for the middle class
  • bring taxes for the very rich back up to fair, historic levels

The day he took office, Obama began breaking promises:

  • The “goal” of passing card check for unions was forgotten.
  • The number of Visas was increased and illegal aliens were not stopped at the border.
  • He began negotiating for even more trade deals, didn’t touch NAFTA, and instead praised it.
  • A loss every month in total manufacturing jobs in America was ignored by the White House
  • Instead of increasing aid for workers, he formed a commission to cut Social Security benefits
  • When Bush tax cuts expired, Obama agreed to lowest tax rates for very rich since FDR.

Continue reading →

Will politicians steal Social Security’s $2.7 trillion?

Social Security is not in “trouble”, except that it has vast wealth in reserves, and politicians want to steal this treasure trove (designed only to insure future Social Security benefits), and use it for something else. That something would probably be tax cuts for the rich by the GOP, or more redistribution downward from the middle class to the poor by the Democrats.

SuttonWhen I combine Treasury Note rates, Cost of Living, Interest on the Social Security fund and the total reserves (in Millions) of the Trust Fund, the resulting Trust Fund Table  demonstrates the steady growth of these reserves from year to year – now exceeding $2.7 trillion total, invested in special Treasury notes.

The table also shows that reserves decreased from 1976 to 1983 (except a small increase in 1982), but since 1983, reserves have grown 1,000%. Every year since 1983 has registered more taxes (FICA) paid, than benefits distributed.

The deficit scolds want benefit cuts, higher retirement age, to accomplish what? Even larger reserves? They never mention that every other government program shows a deficit year after year, while Social Security “makes money.” Today’s trust fund is the largest in its history and growing every year. Continue reading →

Chinese women retire 17 years earlier than us, but moronic scolds want to hike pension age even higher

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, pontificated about plans to cut Social Security on Thursday, last week, at the Urban-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, Washington, DC.  Brady wants to cut Social Security by not only raising the retirement age to 70, but also imposing means testing to cut benefits. He advocated “creating a true cost-of-living for seniors,” meaning using the chained-CPI cost-of-living adjustment formula to further reduce benefits. Chained CPI is lower than the CPI used to adjust everything else.

Brady’s only accomplishment, other than public office, was serving as an executive at the Rapid Cities (ND) Chamber of Commerce before he moved to Texas..

In addition to gutting Social Security he pushes for lower taxes, deficit reduction and Continue reading →

Does Heritage Foundation want Communist plan for Social Security? GOP candidates should denounce!

The Heritage Foundation is the think tank for so-called conservative Republicans, who offer flat tax plans, skeleton government goals and the destruction of Social Security as we know it today.

social-security.gifThe current Social Security program is regressive, and pays a lower percentage in retirement pension, the more you contribute. A retiree, who has paid in the maximum amount (on wages less than about $118,000 in current dollars), will contribute three times as much FICA taxes and receive only twice the benefit at retirement. But at least there is some relationship between the amount of taxes paid and the value of benefits received.

Rather than attempting to make the program more fair, the so-called capitalist Heritage think tank has gone completely Communist by urging a Marxist doctrine of “from each according to their earnings to each according to their needs.”

The foundation wants to pay anyone, who contributes even a pittance into the Continue reading →

“Fair Tax” by GOP would be fairy tale windfall for the rich

fairy dustLeave it to the greedy politicians and their wealthy puppet masters to come up with yet another “reform” that will benefit the upper class at the expense of the other 99%. This time it’s called the “Fair Tax”, and it’s made of fairy dust for the entitled.

Every GOP candidate for President appears to have been told this is the official goal for the year. It’s now a mainstay for every  conservative campaign, along with the standard “reforms” – abolishing Medicare (offering instead, a stipend to buy an imaginary “inexpensive” private plan for 70, 80, and 90-year-olds), plus. the usual GOP and “centrist” Democrat brainstorm to hike the retirement age for Social Security to 69 or 70 at first (and then increase it annually, according to Continue reading →

Social Security benefits keep dropping…

While there has been much discussion about the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and revising it upward so it affects fewer people, Social Security benefits have not received the same attention.

The SSA website notes:

Beginning in 1984, includes up to one-half of Social Security benefits as taxable income for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income, combined with half their benefits and any tax-exempt interest they may have exceeds $25,000 for a single taxpayer and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Benefits received by married taxpayers filing separately are taxable without regard to other income. Appropriates amounts equal to estimated tax liability to the Social Security trust funds.

For the last quarter century we have maintained about these same limits, which means that every year more Americans have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The intention in 1983, when this change was approved by Congress, was to only tax high earners. We can all agree that $32,000 is far from high in today’s economy.

The other issue stems from the limits. Setting $25,000 each for an unmarried couple, and $16,000 each for a married couple, certainly discourages legal matrimony, when you can save income tax on $7,000 by divorcing.

A change to $16,000 per person with no reward for separation should be approved by Democrats everywhere, as well as Republicans concerned about “defense of marriage.”

For those spouses who get benefits from their wife’s or husband’s account, that benefit continues after divorce, so you can get your tax break and the same income as though you were still married.

As the years have passed, the amount of taxation has actually increased, even ignoring wage growth and/or inflation.

Here is the SSA’s rather muddled explanation of this disparity, for what it’s worth:

No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:

– file a federal tax return as an “individual” and your combined income* is ◦between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.

– more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

– file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is ◦between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits

– more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

White House and New Democrat Coalition – cut Medicare to subsidize world’s worst health plan

The new insanity is that instead of passing healthcare for all at no cost – the world standard – nitwits in Congress and the White House have decided to rape Medicare.

One of the targets is home health care. The cuts are major and since the people involved are housebound, there is no danger of them storming the gated communities in rage. They will just die from neglect.

Here’s a report from NY Times:

As they are across the nation, Medicare patients and nurses in this town in northern Maine are anxiously following the Congressional debate because its outcome could affect Medicare’s popular home health benefit in a big way. The legislation would reduce Medicare spending on home health services, a lifeline for homebound Medicare beneficiaries, which keeps them out of hospitals and nursing homes.

Under the bills, more than 30 million Americans would gain health coverage. The cost would be offset by new taxes and fees and by cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers. Home care shows, in microcosm, a conundrum at the heart of the health care debate. Lawmakers have decided that most of the money to cover the uninsured should come from the health care system itself. This raises the question: Can health care providers reduce costs without slashing services?

Under the legislation, home care would absorb a disproportionate share of the cuts. It currently accounts for 3.7 percent of the Medicare budget, but would absorb 10.2 percent of the savings squeezed from Medicare by the House bill and 9.4 percent of savings in the Senate bill, the Congressional Budget Office says. The House bill would slice $55 billion over 10 years from projected Medicare spending on home health services, while the Senate bill would take $43 billion.

Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Rahm Emanuel and the Blue Dog Democrats and the New Democrat Coalition have engineered this as part of their War on Elderly, also know as Operation Enduring Misery.

%d bloggers like this: