March 19, 2005
A Family Affair
The President held a town-hall discussion in Florida yesterday that included his brother and his hyper-popular mother.
Naturally, the idea is to reassure all the retirees in the Sunshine State that their checks will continue to arrive.
I hadn't realized before that with a birthdate after 1950, I'll actually be eligible for the private accounts. Which will presumably have a much higher rate of return than Social Security.
But one doesn't want to count on either. My plan:
1) get rich (come one; how hard can it be?)
2) buy lots of real estate;
3) get richer.
I'm not saying there won't be some bumps in the road, but you have to admit that it's a solid gameplan.
(Via Lucianne.)
Posted by: Attila at
12:08 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Don't wait until you're rich to buy that real estate, especially if you and your hubby are good with minor repairs, painting and, perhaps, landscape.
While my wife and I pissed our saleries away on raising kids a coworker of mine did the smart thing, bought a home, got some equity and leveraged that into going to the Sheriff's auctions and buying houses that needed repair, doing every bit of those repairs that they could themselves. By being somewhat careful about what they boght, the rent they collected was much higher than the mortgage payments. They usually built up equity fast enough that they eventually got to the point where they could buy two or three houses a year.
By ten years of this they were paper millionaires, by the time he retired from the Sheriff's Department at twenty they were actual multimillionaires.
Of course doing that will really cut into your blogging time.
There are some tricks that help a lot with their method, be choosey about the property you buy, get an early relationship with a bank, a real estate management company and a group of licensed contractors, electrical, plumbing, roofing and foundation.
They're rich, I've got a bunch of grown kids that never call. Sigh. Shoulda sold the kids to the Arabs back when they would have brought something.
Posted by: Peter at March 20, 2005 08:39 PM (6krEN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2005
Social Security Reform
Dean
lays out the moral case for making changes while we can still do it without major upheaval.
Posted by: Attila at
12:25 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mayflower Compact Coalition (Wangstas Fo' Shizzle My Nizzle)...
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman today attended the unveiling of the 21st Century Mayflower Compact at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C.. The nine-point agenda includes support for school choice and private social security accounts. The Coalition is advised in part by former House Speaker Newt GingrichÂ’s consulting firm.
African Americans often reach different and surprising conclusions on social issues that the casual (Caucasian) observer just won’t understand. For example, Black folks still want to see Michael Jackson find happiness. His high-pitched voice and soulful delivery is the soundtrack of generations and has a permanent place in the Black community’s psyche, no matter the plastic surgery, skin bleaching and alleged child molestation charges. Possibly, it’s the “he’s still Black” phenomenon that African Americans well understand. They want Michael Jackson’s name cleared. In short, they want him to make good music and just leave the damn kids alone.
Likewise, Blacks see Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program, popularly known as Social Security, as an entitlement forced into place during a period when “bigots” wanted to run things. And against the odds, a well respected Franklin Roosevelt was able to established needed protection for the public from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment. As its original name suggest, African Americans believe the insurance program was created to do much more than provide an old age benefit.
Wangstas (whites and uh oh oreos) are extremely white persons who attempt to be “gangsta” (cool with Black people) in order to “pimp out.” They dress, speak and act for all practical purposes as a African Americans aside from the fact that they are not. Normally they are hated by the fam for being fake.
The White House and its oreos who support overhauling Social Security have launched a highly targeted campaign to convince Black people that President Bush’s plan to create private investment accounts will have special benefits for them. The ghetto fab element about the GOP message to African Americans: “The shorter life expectancy of Black males means Social Security in its current form is not a favorable deal.”
Proponents of privatizing social security who claim no group has as much at stake in the debate over reform as African Americans, in fact, are right. Black families of workers who become disabled or die are much more likely than their Caucasian counterparts to be dependent on the grip available from disability and/or survivor benefits. Blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but 23 percent of African American children receive survivor benefits, and 18 percent of the community are disability beneficiaries.
Although the wangstas are making a special effort to appeal to the strizzeet with the 21st Century Mayflower Compact, the “lower life expectancies” illusion appears to reached every one except the African American senior. Their attempt to focus on a very narrow element of the system (current program based on longevity is unfair) is misplaced and doesn’t gain cool points. What the oreos fail to realize is their attempt to be “down” for da brothas... is just “gosh-darn” obnoxious (using their vernacular) and another clue identifying the new face of segregation.
“A’ight?”
Social Security is an insurance program that protects workers and their families against the income loss that occurs when a worker retires, becomes disabled, or dies. All workers will eventually either grow too old to compete in the labor market, become disabled, or die. President Roosevelt created the program to insure all workers and their families against these universal risks, while spreading the costs and benefits of that insurance protection among the entire workforce.
It is a “pay as you go” program, which means the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) payroll tax paid by today’s workers are not set aside to pay their own benefits down the road, but rather go to pay the benefits of current recipients. The tax isn’t progressive. The low-wage workers receive a greater percentage of pre-retirement earnings from the program than higher-wage workers. And, in the 1980's, Congress passed reforms to raise extra tax revenues above and beyond the current need and set up a trust fund to hold a reserve.
As was the case when the program was established, higher-wage workers still oppose the social nature of the program. They argue low rates of return as a reason to switch from the current “pay-as-you-go” system to one in which individual workers claim their own contribution and decide where and how to invest it. In short, rather than sharing the risk across the entire workforce to ensure that all workers and their families are protected from old age, disability, and death, higher-wage workers want to enable opportunity to reap gains from private investment without having to help protect lower-wage workers from their disproportionate risks.
Allowing high-wage workers (who are more likely to live long enough to retire) opportunity to opt out of the general risk pool and devote all their money to retirement without having to cover the risk of those who may become disabled or die, is da foÂ’ shizzle identifying the republican partyÂ’s desire to return to a segregated society.
RooseveltÂ’s benefit formula currently in place intentionally helps low income earners. Lifetime earnings directly factor into the formula. And, thirty-five percent of Black workers born between 1931 and 1940 had lifetime earnings that fell into the bottom fifth of earnings received by workers born in these years. African AmericansÂ’ median earnings (working-age in jobs covered by Social Security in 2002) were about $21,200, compared to $28,400 for all working-age people.
HNIC, president Bush, does acknowledge the difficulty Blacks will have in accumulating enough savings in their individual accounts to provide for a secure retirement once the progressivity of the current system is eliminated. However, he has only suggested allowing lower-income workers to place higher portions of their income into the uncertainties of investment accounts (creating even more risk).
Yes! Private accounts would be passed on to children or other heirs. But, what the HNIC and his oreos doesnÂ’t explain is lower-income workers would be forced to buy an annuity large enough (when combined with their traditional Social Security benefit) to ensure that they would at least have a poverty level income for retirement.
YoÂ’ playa... da new private social security account fizzle sucks!
Posted by: kstreetfriend at March 23, 2005 12:19 AM (M7kiy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 12, 2005
On Bankruptcy Law
Rick Heller rails against the tide of "libertarian" bloggers who deride the new
bankruptcy-limiting bill as a one-sided piece of legislation, pointing out that it only affects people of means who choose to declare bankruptcy, leaving the way clear for the genuinely poor. He calls the backlash against the bill
"yuppie rage." Heh.
The issue has provoked spirited debate at Dean's World, with great arguments being made on each side. I'm inclined to think that it would have been preferable to include some restrictions on the credit industry as regards pre-approved offers, but I have to say that as my credit score has slid, once again, into the gutter, I haven't been getting any of those lately—so the "predatory practices" only go so far.
What I've observed in my personal life has been that the people who declare bankruptcy tend to do it frivolously, in a fairly cavalier spirit. They tend to be either spoiled trust-fund babies or people with generous incomes who spend a bit beyond their means. There's often some form of wealth that's a bit beyond the reach of the law, such as family money that isn't theirs quite yet.
It's interesting to me that Debtors Anonymous used to prohibit bankruptcy as a tactic for its members, but now apparently takes the stance that in some cases it's permissible, leaving the matter up to individual conscience.
I'd like to see reform of credit-company practices; I really would. But I'm having a hard time advocating the current loosey-goosey approach to bankruptcies, which amounts to legalized theft.
There's got to be a middle ground.
UPDATE: Gail Heriot of National Review debunks the Harvard study that purports to show half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Among other methodological flaws, the study treats drug addiction and compulsive gambling as illnesses, and labels any BKs in which those factor in as "medical," whether there are any medical bills at all. In fact, 75% of the bankruptcies in the study involve medical bills of $1000 or less (not $1000 a year; $1000, period).
The study is very up-front about its bias, which is that there should be universal health-care coverage without any co-payments or deductibles or limitations at all. Yet its highly massaged data is being reported as gospel by the mainstream media. Scary.
Via Joe Gandelman, working the weekend shift at Dean's World.
Posted by: Attila at
04:17 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Agreed. I've seen one genuinely deserving case, but the rest of the BK's I've seen were the result of a mixture of stupidity and a lack of self-control.
Posted by: JD at March 13, 2005 05:47 AM (J+Gcr)
2
There was recently some press given to a statistic that not quite half of all personal bankruptcies are for inability to cover medical expenses during a serious illness. Further, approximately half of those bankruptcies were among middle class individuals with health insurance.
It surprised a lot of analysts, because the popular perception is that "credit card bankruptcy" is the most prevalent. (It certainly EXISTS, we know) The conclusion the CNN writer reached was that most Americans are one serious illness away from bankruptcy.
From my own experience of losing my father a year and half ago, I can see where that would be true in the case of a lingering illness.
As usual, comments are welcome.
Posted by: douglas brown at March 13, 2005 09:07 AM (bF+n6)
3
Yes, but I've heard that there's tremendous controversy over that study, and that others find that medical expenses drive very few BKs--a tiny fraction.
We should be able to get some facts on this.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 13, 2005 11:21 AM (R4CXG)
4
Great. That is one report I would dearly like to learn is false.
Posted by: douglas brown at March 13, 2005 03:53 PM (37HVz)
5
See my update on the main post.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 13, 2005 05:44 PM (R4CXG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
37kb generated in CPU 0.0215, elapsed 0.1319 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1214 seconds, 443 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.