First U.S. baby boomer

[DOGS THAT BARK]

First U.S. baby boomer applies for Social Security By Donna Smith
Mon Oct 15, 5:30 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retired school teacher Kathleen Casey-Kirschling on Monday became the first ripple in a "silver tsunami" of retiring baby boomers applying for pension benefits that threatens to overwhelm U.S. government finances.


Casey-Kirschling was born one second after midnight on January 1, 1946, and will receive her first Social Security check in February 2008 as the first wave of baby boomers turns 62 next year and becomes eligible for early retirement benefits.

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said the agency is bracing for some 80 million Americans to apply for retirement benefits over the next two decades.

"We are already feeling enormous pressure from baby boomers being in their peak disability years and now we're preparing for so many of them to file for retirement," Astrue said at a press conference with Casey-Kirschling.

The system also includes benefits for disabled workers.

Part of that preparation is to encourage boomers to apply for benefits online at www.socialsecurity.gov/onlineservices. Astrue said the roughly 40 minutes it takes to apply from home is more convenient and less time-consuming than traveling to the local Social Security office.

Because Casey-Kirschling is retiring early, her monthly benefit is reduced to 75 percent of what she would have received had she waited for full retirement at age 66.

The age of full retirement for Social Security is gradually rising from 65 for those born before 1938 to 67 for people born after 1959 under a 1983 law that was enacted to shore up the pension program's finances.

Social Security, which referred to the looming crisis as a "silver tsunami," is facing enormous financial pressures from the generation born in the aftermath of World War Two. The latest report by the program's trustees said by 2017, Social Security will begin to pay more benefits than it receives in taxes. By 2041, the trust fund is projected to be exhausted.

Lawmakers have been talking about fixing the problem for years, but failed amid partisan bickering over a plan by President George W. Bush to partially privatize Social Security.

"There is no reason to have any immediate panic," Astrue said. "I and most people who are really familiar with the situation are confident that there will be some pain along the way, but we will get there and Social Security will be there for future generations."

Casey-Kirschling, who taught food and nutrition to seventh-graders in New Jersey, said she is also confident lawmakers will eventually tackle the retirement program's long-term financial problems.

"I do think they will come up with a solution," she said.

Budget-watchers in the U.S. Congress have been contemplating forming an independent bipartisan commission to review ways to fund the growing number of pensioners. So far the idea has not gotten off the ground and no decisions on program changes are expected at least until the the next president takes office in January, 2009.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now consider the proportion of wealth that we boomers have and the lost tax revenue when we retire plus the enormous cost benefits we will be receiving --and guess whose going to be footing the tab for "we' Boomers.

So tack it on to the Dems already projected tax increases--and more social programs for you to foot bill on--and tell me how the future looks-
Not a pretty picture unless your in the non tax paying status.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

heres a few taxes you can look forward to--Per Clinton one time advisor Dick Morris--


Hillary Will Raise Taxes If Elected

Monday, October 15, 2007 4:48 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann



Hillary Clinton will raise taxes if she is elected president.

Sharply.

As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.

As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here?s the code book.

She says that she will ?let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.


It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.


She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.


But that is far from all.


She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes. This levy is currently enforced on the first $97,000 of income. Hillary would probably follow the lead of Democratic liberals and either raise the limit ? at least doubling it ? or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!


Congressman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., both close Hillary allies (it was Rangel who first suggested she run for Senate in New York), are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.) Each year, inflation threatens to expand to cover more and more middle class families and replace it with a 35 percent tax on all "carried interest" earnings of hedge funds and other venture capital partnerships.


Robert Novak reports that Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system." Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation "the mother of all tax reforms."


Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.


Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.


In her own way, Hillary?s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime: "It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."


"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself . . . We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."


On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: ?We?re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.? And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would ?raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.?


She attacks the Bush administration for ?going back to the era of the robber barons.? She says, ?It?s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ?on your own? society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ?we?re all in it together society.??


Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far-reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If she/they get in office--will start thread with my fellow boomers/tax payors on how to beat most of these--and climb on the gravy train.

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, it's too bad Dubbya and Co. were so busy redistributing the energy policy and with the whole elective war business and establishing a consistent revenue stream for those cronies to have time to privatizing Social Security to get that under the control of more republican financial backers in the years to come.

I guess even the really focused guys only have so much time.

Wayne, you don't think that the dark side will be able to actually put a dent in the skyrocketing wealth of those being targeted by Hillary and Co., do you? I mean, after all, as you so often point out, it's been really hard on them increasing their percentage of income and wealth the last few years with such a penalizing tax system. They truly are "hard workers", aren't they?

 

[Chadman]

Two observations, Wayne. First, it seems you are concerned with the burden future generations are going to be saddled with in the scenario you describe - wondering why you never show the same concern (unless I missed it) with the record high deficits that future generations will have to deal with (kudos on deficits returning recently to other Bush levels...yay...). Not to mention the 1/3 of our tax payments currently going to pay just the interest on that debt. Current and future getting hit - but no peeps from the conservatives about that - because it doesn't suit the talking points, I assume.

And, always talking about the poor having no tax burden. What should they pay? Don't remember you talking about that, maybe you have. Should we all pay the same percentage, and then do away with all the tax breaks and writeoffs that only some can take advantage of, dramatically cutting their overall burden?

Maybe a quick answer on those?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I believe I asked this before Chad--when was last time we had no debt.Was just prior to intro of sociolist programs--
--and revert back to thread--Don't confuse NYT --which also apllied to cnn nbc and others--here is some better news for you from thread you might have missed elsewhere

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good News Is No news

When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years ? it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.

But in an editorial Friday ? The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."

But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent ? to a record of more than $2.5 trillion ? and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
will side with you though that debt is concern--however am confused that you might think adding a bunch more social programs instead of fixing ones we have is the answer.

As I said numerous times--wars and man made and natural disasters are time limited expenses and of little concern--its the social programs that are not only on going expenses but escalating yearly--forever.

--and don't forget those who made the bucks are generally smart enough to keep it--so where will the money come from?--your generation.

Let them bring it on--Quite simple to avoid capital gains tax entirely and numerous ways to reduce income to any amount necessary. Have always paid my fair share--but will cut them to the bone if necessary and can tell you with certainty--I won't be by myself--I'll let you, Smurph, Matt and others foot the bill for spongebobs-spythewebs and the 90% "it ain't my fault" crew.
Be careful what you wish for,my friend.

 

[Nosigar]

I thought it was Vinnie Testaverde. :com:



The Chad man continues to want the government to pay for his expenses (i.e. other people) AND blame Bush for ... for...... uhhhh... everything. Jeeez, it's tiring and really disgusting.:nono:

 

[Chadman]

Before I touch on Wayne's retort - which actually takes some thoughtful time and effort - I'll switch focus to another brilliant post from Nosigar. Scintillating commentary, as always. If my posts so tire you, and you only manage to explain that with the thick paintbrush that doesn't even give a real picture when finished, why do you bother. Save yourself some effort, rest up, and deal with issues in your usual shallow fashion.

To deal with your intense post...

The Government doesn't pay for anything. We pay for everything. I pay my expenses - and I choose not to complain so much about that, and appreciate what a fantastic country the money I pay in provides me to live in. You bitch and complain about everything other than keeping your stuff, and say that anyone who thinks differently hates the country. Isn't America great?

I'd be curious to know how often you blamed Clinton, Carter (if you're old enought), etc., for things when they were President. I'm guessing it was pretty often. And so it goes. Isn't America great? As long as it's something you believe in, it's a great thing, and anyone with a different opinion is tiring and disgusting.

I would presume that supporting Bush over the past few years would have been pretty tiring and disgusting, but then again, you probably could have guessed that.

Wayne, thanks for efforting more than a 2 sentence bash. There are some that think the way you guys do that can carry a thought through the tough parts...Cheers.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

a little more on the debt issue Chad

I think we can agree that debt is not good and reducing it is a primary objective.

The question is how--the way I see it there are only 2 options- raising taxes--(which could very easily halt growth and actually reduce revenue) or cut spending. Looks like a no brainer to me.
Agreed both parties or politicians in general have hard time doing this as they have to pander to outside interests.

Reducing spending is raily the option either party takes-why?

Because of power and getting electing.

Heres the problem.
You have the top 25% of wage earners footing over 85% of tax bill and bottom 50% footing about 3%.

So if you want to pander to the majority (votes) you take the route that benefits them at the expense of the tax payor.Simple math.

Bottom line--as more of the U.S. demogaphics shift to non tax paying status the stronger the Dem party gets. Somehow I don't see that as being productive.

You currently have
the top 10% with ave tax rate of 18.84 %
the top 50%-----------------------------13.84%
the bottom 50%------------------------2.98%

Just to what extremes will it have to be adjusted until dems think its fair-when take home of top 50% equals take home of bottom 50% AFTER taxes

 

[Chadman]

Really busy this AM, Wayne, back later with some thoughts. You last post is one to think on - I think this kind of post is at the base for which moving forward positively can start. We need to look at basics and what is "fair" and sensible and how to address issues. Will be back later.