What a Surprise

[keakap]

...Now I ask you, how in the hell am I gonna be able to pony up my 2500 dollar fine for not having healthcare? I never get money back from the IRS, so how do they intend on collecting the fine?

Not to worry! As I understand it, provisions have been made in the bill for those who cannot pay the fine for not buying what you don't want and cannot afford. You go to prison.

Problem solved.

[swampgator]

I just want to clarify a couple of points about Federal employees. First, the number of Federal employees is smaller than it was 20 years ago. But, what has happened since then is that many of the jobs and tasks are contracted out. Those workers make less, most times don't get the health insurance and other benefits. There is a little loop hole since the 1940's. If an employee works fewer than 39.5 hours, they don't have to be paid minimum wage. Next time in your work place, look at the sheet on the wall. Those who work fewer than 39.5 hours can be treated differently. Now, those contractors are making good funds while their employess are making less. Talk with your postman. Most of them contracted. All mail from one town to another is contracted. They do not get the retirement or health insurance. We hired many retired military workers in the 1980's as temps and they were fired each September only to be called back up in October. They did not get any of the perks of the regular employees. During the BRAC (10 years starting in 1986 to 1995) (five rounds) many Federal employees were fired with no retirement.

Yes, Dave, those hired from Oct. 1, 1984 are on SS and they can put up to 10% of their remaining pay in that 401K like program called Thrift Savings Plan. Yes, when those investments go down, so does their savings and retirement.

On other important fact is that during the 1980's (LBJ dead by then), when we were pushed into Medicare, those who worked fewer than 20 years paying in do not qualify for Medicare. Those of us who did, the retirement papers clearly say "When you get to be 65 years of age, you must chooseMedicare as your primary insurance. So, since we have to pay insurance premiums with a good insurance, why do we have to take from a broke system? Why not keep that system for those folks who don't have what we have? And, we get to continue paying our insurance. My wife has Medicare Part A. A $60K bill at University of Alabama at Birmingham was mostly paid by Medicare. My government insurance paid less that $1000 and we paid another $2000. We had saved up and could afford it, but I don't understand taking it from one group of folks for another. Just my short fused brain, I guess.

Yes, the government gives and it can and does take away when it wants. Most Federal employees live on less than $30k annually. So, they are expected to pay a mortgage, have children, feed and clothe them, pay for autos, regular maintenance and do all the things everyone else does on that amount of pay. You may do some research on JobsUSA, http://www.NARFE.ORG and http://www.opm.gov Yes, they have tables that shows big salaries, but there are very few of those jobs just as in the private sector. The person you see in the front may have one of the good salaries, but that person has anywhere from 30 to 150 people under them making much less. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks for allowing me to be part of the discussion. Retired in 2003, had one year of tax deductions (2009) and yes, Dusty, our tax deductions went up.

Jim, man, I feel your situation. If you want to pay into SS so you get a better retirement, then you also have to report and pay taxes on your income. You are in a trap. When you start drawing you SS, do all your work under the table. That's what I have to do. Oops! I told on myself.

[doug45601]

As a retired military.... I'm not feeling any great pinch in my retirement pay. Yes the new tax schedule has reduced my monthly pay... BUT NOT MY INCOME... It's just a schedule adjustment..

Uncle Sam has always treated me fair with health insurance, housing, and pay and the retainer pay I'm now receiveing is adequate for my needs.. In fact the government is highly overpaying many people today..

[derekdarling]

Hi all, I couldn't help noticing that there is a lot of talk about 'Deficit', and not much about 'Debt'. I am of the understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that 'deficit' is the difference between what we earn and what we spend. I am also of the understanding that (and again I am very happy to be corrected on this) that once this year is over and we are looking at next year's deficit, THIS year's defecit becomes 'debt'. It doesn't somehow magically go away.

Again, it is likely my feeble understanding of economics, but it seems that a lot of 'deficit' goes into servicing 'debt'. One definition of insanity is to continue doing the same things with the expectation of a different outcome.

I live in a country where all income literally belongs to the crown (the state), and we get to keep a bit of it to live on, and the balance is used to support medicare, educaiton, etc., etc. I don't mind that; I do mind when it gets wasted, misued, or diverted by corrupt officials.

So, putting politics aside, I find myself agreeing with my neighbours to the south (and north, Ms. Palin that is) when they object to spiralling government costs.

I don't have any answers, just wanted you to know that, as Red Green puts it "we're all in this together, I'm pulling for ya".

Cheers,

Derek in Vancouver