Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I should tell ya - those panels already exist, in Medicare and in private insurance. So I don't know why you are surprised by this at all.

Cycloptichorn

I am not surprised. Did I say I was? All of this is why most people have supplementary medical insurance policies to pick up where Medicare lets you simply fade away and die.

From HuffPost. The answer largely depends on when you retire and how much you've earned over your lifetime. Consider a single man who earns the average wage throughout his career ($43,100 in 2010 dollars), works every year from age 22 to 64, and then retires at age 65 in 2010. Over his lifetime he has paid $345,000 into the system.

NOTE: I retired in 1998, and my wife retired in 2008; our total FICA contributions were $131K.

But he is likely to get back $72,000 more than that, or $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare payouts, according to recent Urban Institute calculations. A single women with the same work and tax history will come out even further ahead due to her longer life expectancy, likely netting $464,000 in lifetime benefits, which is $192,000 more than she paid into the system. These amounts are in constant 2010 dollars and assume a 2 percent real interest rate.
Medicare benefits are the main reason most workers are coming out ahead. A male earning the average wage throughout his working life who retires in 2010 paid $55,000 into the Medicare trust fund, but is likely to receive $161,000 worth of Medicare benefits, the Urban Institute found. In contrast, he pays $290,000 in Social Security taxes throughout his career and collects $256,000 in retirement payments.

Married couples generally benefit the most from Social Security and Medicare payments, especially when one spouse earns significantly more than the other. A two-earner couple with one spouse earning the average wage each year ($43,100 in 2010) and the other spouse earning 45 percent of the average wage annually ($19,400 in 2010) who both retire in 2010 will get back $300,000 more in retirement benefits than they paid into the system. A couple with this earnings history would pay $500,000 in taxes over their lifetime, but get back $800,000 in benefits.
When both members of the couple earn the same average wage over their working life, they get back $192,000 more than their tax contributions. In this case the spouses paid $690,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes and are likely to get $882,000 worth of benefits in retirement.

From 401K Planning.
As of early 2011, the financial markets had regained about 80% of their value from the October 2007 peak reached before the onset of the Great Recession. Citing this recovery, some observers have optimistically concluded that the long-term impact of the financial market collapse on workers' 401k and retirement plans will be relatively minor. Also, many observers note that 401k employee contributions held steady throughout the recession - another positive factor.
But a top-level overviews of the financial market recovery can hide the permanent damage done to 401k and retirement savings for millions of workers. Here are five ways that the Great Recession permanently scarred 401k retirement savings for millions of American workers:
1. Older Workers - Older workers with substantial investment in equities were more negatively impacted as they were more likely to have had higher account balances prior to the downturn and thus to have suffered greater absolute losses than younger workers. With fewer years left in the workforce these workers may be unable to recoup their losses through additional saving and investment.

Extended Unemployment - The primary impact of the economic recession on millions of individuals and families has been unemployment or reduced wages. Either of these can induce plan participants to use their 401k assets for nonretirement related purposes. Extended unemployment almost certainly has a negative effect on an individual’s retirement income. The extent of the damage will vary, but whether through cessation of employee or employer contributions or even tapping into pension assets for near term needs, being out of work for any length of time is likely to affect a person’s ability to save and perhaps even the ability to preserve accrued retirement savings.

From greatrecessionof2008. Since then there has been a 40% fall in the Dow. Applied to the say, 50% or $4.5 trillion invested in equities, this is a loss of value approaching $2 trillion. There are 110 million households in the United States, including those without access to pension funds. Adjusting for those without pension entitlements, the average pension fund investment loss per household between October 2007 and October 2008, might be close to $25,000.

To this must be added the decline in the market value of direct equity investments by households, direct commercial property investments, decreased values of small businesses for owners, and even an abnormal fall in the value of personal motor vehicles, due to reduced demand. The amounts can only be guessed, but might increase the average household loss of retirement investment value from the $25,000 pension fund loss to a total investment loss of $30,000 per household.

I have paid in over 200 grand now I think,

— Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton offered Thursday to end a two-week government shutdown by accepting a Republican proposal to bring more money into Minnesota's budget.
Dayton announced in Minneapolis that he will agree to an offer legislative Republicans made just before the shutdown started, if they agree to drop a list of policy changes and a plan to reduce the state workforce by 15 percent.
GOP leaders said they were reviewing the offer and had no immediate comment.
The offer would raise $1.4 billion, half by delaying state aid checks to schools districts and the other half by selling tobacco payment bonds.
Dayton, who is offering to drop his proposal to raise top-tier income taxes, said he doesn't like the Republican way out of the budget impasse.
"However, despite my serious reservations about your plan, I have concluded that continuing the state government shutdown would be even more destructive for too many Minnesotans," he said in a letter to GOP leaders that he read aloud before a University of Minnesota audience.
"Therefore, I am willing to agree to something I do not agree with — your proposal — in order to spare our citizens and our state from further damage," he added.

From 1959 to 2010 the Average was 7.0%, the Median was 7.5%, the minimum was 0.8% and the maximum rate hit 14.6%. From 1959 to 1995 the rate averaged 8.4%. The average rate from 1995 to 2010 had dropped to 3.4%.

Quote:

I have paid in over 200 grand now I think,

you would be WRONG as usual okie..
It would be impossible for you to pay in that much over a 50 year working career based on the historical maximums in that time period.

You are the one wrong as usual. I pulled my Social Security statement from 2008 and it showed that I and my employers

Anyone with an ounce of common sense, especially anyone that has ever run a business, which I guess you have not, would know that the cost of taxes go into the cost of employees, and so if employers did not have to pay those Social Secuirity and Medicare taxes, they could have paid the employees that much more.

The obvious conclusion is that the employees essentially paid the taxes in lost or lowered wages or benefits.

You are assuming a situation with zero elasticity, and that's just not the case.Cycloptichorn

Really? You get reduced costs for housing and subsidies for travel costs even if they are not for company business.