Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economic & Policy Research)   Are you retired but can afford your mortgage? Then you're rich and should have your Social Security cut   (cepr.net ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Washington Post, Pew Charitable Trusts, defined benefit, Robert Rubin, social security, interest income  
•       •       •

1318 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-14 01:39:34 PM  
do they have a refrigerator? then f*ck 'em!
 
2012-08-14 01:44:35 PM  
I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.
 
2012-08-14 01:51:36 PM  

Babwa Wawa: I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.


This. It's probably the only way I will be able to afford to retire.
 
2012-08-14 02:45:45 PM  
No sir, it's just that 90% of us are poor.
 
2012-08-14 02:47:14 PM  
If you still have a mortgage by the age of 67, WTF? I'm all for helping the impoverished have a fair chance but live within your means, people!
 
2012-08-14 02:48:46 PM  

Babwa Wawa: I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.


Me, too. If you're retired, why the hell would you still have a mortgage?
 
2012-08-14 02:49:02 PM  
If you can afford a mortgage based on your non-social security retirement income, I'd agree with that. On a graduated scale, of course.
 
2012-08-14 02:50:42 PM  
By 67, I hope to have mine turned into one of them fancy "reverse mortgages" so they bank can have it when I burn it to the ground as I am pulling my last breath of this ungodly rock I live on.
 
2012-08-14 02:50:56 PM  

The Homer Tax: Babwa Wawa: I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.

Me, too. If you're retired, why the hell would you still have a mortgage?


My parents split when they were 53 and 56. My mom bought a house and my dad bought a piece of land he'll build a house on. I'm not sure of all the details, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out a mortgage is involved. They got farking hosed short-selling the house after the split.
 
2012-08-14 02:52:58 PM  
There are other options for the elderly:

www.carlsontoons.com
 
2012-08-14 02:56:34 PM  

Jackpot777: If you still have a mortgage by the age of 67, WTF? I'm all for helping the impoverished have a fair chance but live within your means, people!


My dad has a mortgage at almost-68 because my mother divorced him about two years ago (right as he finished his cancer treatments!) and kept the house, so he had to go buy another one. shiat happens.
 
2012-08-14 02:57:05 PM  
www.bartcop.com


I want my country back!
 
2012-08-14 02:57:14 PM  

The Homer Tax: Babwa Wawa: I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.

Me, too. If you're retired, why the hell would you still have a mortgage?


My mom bought her current house when she was about 67. So screw you, she's retired and has a mortgage.

She's also not on Social Security, so screw you again.
 
2012-08-14 02:58:34 PM  

thurstonxhowell: The Homer Tax: Babwa Wawa: I hope not to have a mortgage when I'm retired.

Me, too. If you're retired, why the hell would you still have a mortgage?

My parents split when they were 53 and 56. My mom bought a house and my dad bought a piece of land he'll build a house on. I'm not sure of all the details, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out a mortgage is involved. They got farking hosed short-selling the house after the split.


The important thing to remember is that the lawyers and real estate agent made out well.
 
2012-08-14 03:00:58 PM  

DemonEater: My dad has a mortgage at almost-68 because my mother divorced him about two years ago (right as he finished his cancer treatments!) and kept the house, so he had to go buy another one. shiat happens.


Your mom's a coont. However, I am in the market for a sugarmomma. What's her fark handle?
 
2012-08-14 03:01:40 PM  

omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!


What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...
 
2012-08-14 03:03:40 PM  

thurstonxhowell: My parents split when they were 53 and 56. My mom bought a house and my dad bought a piece of land he'll build a house on. I'm not sure of all the details, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out a mortgage is involved. They got farking hosed short-selling the house after the split.


Oh sorry, no sympathy here. I believe in Traditional Marriage.
 
2012-08-14 03:04:04 PM  

omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!


And in the 1950's and 1960's we had significant racism. That is what you want back? Really?
 
2012-08-14 03:05:16 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...


shhhh, people here don't like it when you point out the effective tax rate with all the deductions and tax shelters vs. the marginal tax rates.
 
2012-08-14 03:06:42 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...


In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.
 
2012-08-14 03:07:48 PM  
Federal poverty level is a flaming joke.
 
2012-08-14 03:09:37 PM  

max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.


oohhh, you are so cute.
You don't seem to know the level of tax shelters and deductions that the top brackets could use back then.

Did you really believe that Carnegie paid 92% of his income (above 50k) back then? Really, that is what you believe.

How is your unicorn working out for you?
 
2012-08-14 03:09:48 PM  
Just came her to say one thing. I don't agree with this article, but there is something that always bothered me that I kind of want to share and hear some other opinions about it.

I used to work for an affordable housing property (HUD Section 8 for the Elderly), and as per government regulations, we would have to recertify them for housing every year to determine their rent. This rent was based on 30% of their income, including a small portion of their total assets.

There would be little old ladies barely scraping by, really needing this housing assistance. They would have no savings, or very little, and thus their rent would be pretty cheap.

THEN, there would be people who would have 800,000 in assets, with little or no income but social security, and would get upset when their rent would be more than 30% of their SS income - because they had a lot of assets and that had to be included - a small percentage. I would get angry calls a lot and have to explain why their rent wasn't 150 a month like Bertha Jones' next door. Still, their rent was still very low, always much lower than market rent for the area because they didn't have any actual "income" but SS.

I was always conflicted about this because it seems to me, if you have all of that money stockpiled away, why do you need government-assisted housing? These waitlists are HUNDREDS of people long, and most people only get in when someone dies or moves to a nursing home, so turnover is very low. I always felt bad for the people who really needed housing because they had no "nest-egg" and those that technically were eligible for housing but certainly could use their savings to get a regular, non-taxpayer funded apartment.

/hmm
 
2012-08-14 03:09:52 PM  
I want my country back!

Me too, It'd be nice if we could cut 2 trillion from the budget to get back near the 1950s spending levels.
 
2012-08-14 03:11:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

And in the 1950's and 1960's we had significant racism. That is what you want back? Really?


t0.gstatic.com

www.mylifeinthetrenches.com
 
2012-08-14 03:12:24 PM  

max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.


Can't you both be wrong?

A 2007 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated effective tax rates for various income groups.

For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.
 
2012-08-14 03:13:24 PM  

MugzyBrown: I want my country back!

Me too, It'd be nice if we could cut 2 trillion from the budget to get back near the 1950s spending levels.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-14 03:13:31 PM  
"We used to make shiat in this country, build shiat. Now everyone has their hand in the next guy's pocket." ~ Frank Sobotka, The WIre
 
2012-08-14 03:17:58 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.

oohhh, you are so cute.
You don't seem to know the level of tax shelters and deductions that the top brackets could use back then.

Did you really believe that Carnegie paid 92% of his income (above 50k) back then? Really, that is what you believe.

How is your unicorn working out for you?


But you think the wealthy today really pay 35% or 18% of Cap Gains income? And corporations pay 35%?
 
2012-08-14 03:18:31 PM  
Hell, those are the people with the hugest sense of entitlement. I visited a friend last week in rural Virginia. She's wealthy and retired, owns a horse farm. All of her neighbors are rich and retired with a lot of acreage. I went to a cookout where I listened to them biatch about three things: Obama, taxes, and how few doctors there are in the county who take Medicare.

These people have Fox News on the radio and TV from the moment they wake up until the moment they fall asleep. I would bet good money that each one of them is collecting a Social Security check.
 
2012-08-14 03:19:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: And in the 1950's and 1960's we had significant racism. That is what you want back? Really?


So... Taxing the rich causes racism?

thinkprogress.org

I guess that does have some kind of bizarre correlation...
=Smidge=
 
2012-08-14 03:21:13 PM  

Uzzah: max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.

Can't you both be wrong?

A 2007 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated effective tax rates for various income groups.

For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.


take out the corporate numbers from that and recalc. skews the numbers too much.
 
2012-08-14 03:21:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.

oohhh, you are so cute.
You don't seem to know the level of tax shelters and deductions that the top brackets could use back then.

Did you really believe that Carnegie paid 92% of his income (above 50k) back then? Really, that is what you believe.

How is your unicorn working out for you?


I don't have a unicorn because I live here in reality. Taxable income in the top bracket is always taxed at the top rate. Always has been and always will be. That's how progressive taxation works.

P.s. Andrew Carnegie died in 1919 when the top marginal rate was 72% for incomes over $1,000,000 (around $14 million in today's dollars).
 
2012-08-14 03:22:12 PM  

omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!


No, not yours!
 
2012-08-14 03:23:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Uzzah: max_pooper: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

In the top tax brackets income was in fact taxed at 70 to 92%.

\You seem to lack basic understanding of progressive taxation.

Can't you both be wrong?

A 2007 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated effective tax rates for various income groups.

For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

take out the corporate numbers from that and recalc. skews the numbers too much.


Skews it how? Would today's numbers go up or down in your opinion?
 
2012-08-14 03:23:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

shhhh, people here don't like it when you point out the effective tax rate with all the deductions and tax shelters vs. the marginal tax rates.


Huh... whaddya know. Not much different than today.
 
2012-08-14 03:24:18 PM  

Smidge204: tenpoundsofcheese: And in the 1950's and 1960's we had significant racism. That is what you want back? Really?

So... Taxing the rich causes racism?

[thinkprogress.org image 485x450]

I guess that does have some kind of bizarre correlation...
=Smidge=


False hope is too cruel even for liars.
 
2012-08-14 03:25:02 PM  

omgrtfa: MugzyBrown: I want my country back!

Me too, It'd be nice if we could cut 2 trillion from the budget to get back near the 1950s spending levels.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]


What are you trying to prove by showing a graph that starts 20 years later?

Link

1950s average about 27% of GDP
currently average about 40% of GDP

Current gdp is about $15T

13% of 15T is about $2T
 
2012-08-14 03:26:28 PM  

Smidge204: tenpoundsofcheese: And in the 1950's and 1960's we had significant racism. That is what you want back? Really?


[thinkprogress.org image 485x450]


Terrible that people like Reverend Manning use that mack daddy phrase.
and terrible that so many people compared Bush to a monkey....that's racist.
 
2012-08-14 03:29:02 PM  

max_pooper: Taxable income in the top bracket is always taxed at the top rate. Always has been and always will be. That's how progressive taxation works.



Do you know the difference between income and taxable income?
Do you know how tax shelters and deductions and things like the AMT has changed in the last 50 years?
 
2012-08-14 03:32:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: TheGreatGazoo: omgrtfa: [www.bartcop.com image 500x500]


I want my country back!

What were the rates that people actually paid?

/hint - it wasn't anywhere near 70 to 92%...

shhhh, people here don't like it when you point out the effective tax rate with all the deductions and tax shelters vs. the marginal tax rates.

Huh... whaddya know. Not much different than today.


Look above. You're off by more than double. It was about 70% and is about 33%. And that's paid, not rate.

And if you remove the MUCH HIGHER hit people used to take for corporate taxes in the 60's, you'll see they still paid more then than now.
 
2012-08-14 03:34:21 PM  
Ya know, if you have substantial equity in the house above what you owe (I know, I know -- stop laughing -- that used to be possible!), then, yeah, maybe it should be part of a means test. I'm really not sure the Grampa Simpson situation ("I don't need it, but if they miss one payment, I'll raise hell!") is a defensible one. If you're paying a mortgage you "can't afford" but you could downsize and pay for a smaller place in full, you don't really get any sympathy out of me.

"Oh, no! I can't afford the payment on my $500,000 mortgage on this $1M house!"

Well, sell the damned house and buy something for $250k and carefully invest the rest.

And I'm a pretty bleedin'-heart kinda farker.

Huggermugger: how few doctors there are in the county who take Medicare.


Fun fact: If your institution receives federal funding for medical research, it *must* take Medicare.

Fun fact: If your institution takes Medicare, it *must* bill no other organization a lower price than it bills Medicare. Including cash patients, which presents a different rant. (That is, Medicare gets the lowest price on everything, no matter what, by law.)

Ironic Result: The best doctors in the world -- those on the cutting edge of medical science, in rigorous academic institutions -- are treating the least revenue-generating, least-appreciative, often least-compliant asshole patients on the planet... Medicare recipients who don't pay for shiat and think they deserve the world. While for-profit, cash-only washout MDs see those who can afford to write a check and thus appreciate the service provided and do what they're told. And pay more for it.

*My* solution would be "ok, if you want your medical license renewed, you take Medicare" (among other things) but I know that makes me some kind of filthy commie soshulizm-ist.
 
2012-08-14 03:35:26 PM  
Current Spending is about 24% of GDP.

Spending in the 1950s averaged about 17.5% of GDP.
 
2012-08-14 03:35:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: max_pooper: Taxable income in the top bracket is always taxed at the top rate. Always has been and always will be. That's how progressive taxation works.

Do you know the difference between income and taxable income?
Do you know how tax shelters and deductions and things like the AMT has changed in the last 50 years?


The linked study shows that even factoring that in, the wealthy paid a lot more in the 60's. Even with the ways to get out of it. Especially because the corporate tax was so much larger a portion of that bracket's income.

See page 10.
Here's a direct link if you can't find it in the politifact link.
[link]http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf[/li n k]
 
2012-08-14 03:38:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: max_pooper: Taxable income in the top bracket is always taxed at the top rate. Always has been and always will be. That's how progressive taxation works.

Do you know the difference between income and taxable income?
Do you know how tax shelters and deductions and things like the AMT has changed in the last 50 years?


Please note the bolded section of my post you quoted. It clearly shows that I know the difference between income and taxable income.

You have shown time and time again that you lack basic understanding of taxes and their impact on government revenue and the economy.
 
2012-08-14 03:45:41 PM  
Look above. You're off by more than double. It was about 70% and is about 33%. And that's paid, not rate.

And if you remove the MUCH HIGHER hit people used to take for corporate taxes in the 60's, you'll see they still paid more then than now.


From 1951 - 1960 the US federal government received taxes at a rate of about 17.5% of GDP
From 2001 - 2008 17.6% of GDP
From 1946 - 2011 17.7% of GDP


So tax rates aren't really an issue.
 
2012-08-14 03:48:15 PM  

SFSailor: Ya know, if you have substantial equity in the house above what you owe (I know, I know -- stop laughing -- that used to be possible!), then, yeah, maybe it should be part of a means test.


On my 120k paid off house? I don't think so
 
2012-08-14 03:52:29 PM  
"*My* solution would be "ok, if you want your medical license renewed, you take Medicare" (among other things) but I know that makes me some kind of filthy commie soshulizm-ist."

No, it doesnt, it makes you clueless about what it takes to run a business. For many doctors, they'd just get out of the market if they couldnt at least break even. The government is tending more and more toward making medicare patients unprofitable for doctors to be able to treat.
 
2012-08-14 03:54:56 PM  

MugzyBrown: Look above. You're off by more than double. It was about 70% and is about 33%. And that's paid, not rate.

And if you remove the MUCH HIGHER hit people used to take for corporate taxes in the 60's, you'll see they still paid more then than now.

From 1951 - 1960 the US federal government received taxes at a rate of about 17.5% of GDP
From 2001 - 2008 17.6% of GDP
From 1946 - 2011 17.7% of GDP


So tax rates aren't really an issue.


That means that as the rates of higher income people have dropped, the difference must have been made up elsewhere. Meaning that people NOT in the top tax bracket must be paying more. Perhaps that might be part of the problem, and the tax burden should be shifted at least partially BACK to the upper class instead of on those further down the income scale?
 
2012-08-14 03:59:55 PM  

Deneb81: MugzyBrown: Look above. You're off by more than double. It was about 70% and is about 33%. And that's paid, not rate.

And if you remove the MUCH HIGHER hit people used to take for corporate taxes in the 60's, you'll see they still paid more then than now.

From 1951 - 1960 the US federal government received taxes at a rate of about 17.5% of GDP
From 2001 - 2008 17.6% of GDP
From 1946 - 2011 17.7% of GDP


So tax rates aren't really an issue.

That means that as the rates of higher income people have dropped, the difference must have been made up elsewhere. Meaning that people NOT in the top tax bracket must be paying more. Perhaps that might be part of the problem, and the tax burden should be shifted at least partially BACK to the upper class instead of on those further down the income scale?


Yes, and the higher tax rates at the top will also encourage money to be reinvested in business ventures as apposed to being taken out as highly taxed income.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report