Does a millionaire pay the same monthly premium for Medicare as someone who is dirt poor?

Is this the case? Should that be the way it works?

Just thinking out loud.

Don

not wages.

If they don't get wages, they don't pay into SS or MC.

They can't collect, either.

You want to increase taxes on the rich, increase their INCOME taxes.

:shrug:

And we all know what happens to "welfare" programs, don't we?



The guy who makes a million bucks a year pays the same dollar amount as the guy that makes 105,000 a year. They will also receive the same-size SSA check when they retire.


That's how it works now.

or Part B supplement.

When Medicare/Soc Sec were first proposed, the concept that everyone got it regardless of need, was the way to differentiate it from a welfare program. Without that feature, I dont think it would have ever passed.

"Everyone" does not receive SS/Medicare. "Everyone" pays for it. :hi:

True if you die too early you don't get it.
They never would have been able to sell a new 15% tax (7.5% for employee + 7.5% for employer)

If people paid their entire life and never got it when they retired.
It was "sold" as an insurance plan not a tax and not welfare.

"It was 'sold' as an insurance plan not a tax and not welfare."

That's marketing for you. Both systems are 100% Pay As You Go (paid for by taxes on current workers.)

mainly due to large amount of $$$ coming in when Baby Boomers were working (substantially more workers than retirees)

When baby boomers retire the following generations are smaller and thus there will be less workers for each retiree.
The situation made more difficult by the fact that the Baby Boomers will live longer than previous generations.

These are not controversial facts.

Future checks CAN NOT be paid only by current workers.

Baby boomers are only beginning to retire now. They will retire in force in about 10 years.

Not nearly enough workers compared to the number of retirees and the length they live.

So the surplus will need to be paid back. There is no option unless you want to raise the collection rate by 300% for the same benefits.

Now the "right" thing to do would actually maintain a trust fund and earn some interest on that money.
That would have provided additional protection but that option is gone it was gone 20 years ago.

I'm not "paying back" the babyboomers with the SS/Medicare taxes that come out of my check; they never gave me any funds (or medical care, for that matter!) in the first place. As to me, it's a gratuitous transfer--the dreaded "W" word! :eek:

So yes we will pay it back or the entire system will fail.

the so-called "trust fund" was spent in the first place! So when I am "paying back" the babyboomers for money they spent on themselves before I was born, I am undifferetiated part of the "collective we", but when it comes time to draw a benefit, I am back to Romulox, the individual denied care in a program that I pay for every week. It seems like membership in this "collective we" is quite fluid!

By the same logic, the "collective we" are just taking care of our own children with WIC or food stamps--they aren't "welfare" either.

The SS "we" = mainly the working class.

Reagan increased SS taxes over pay-go to fund income tax cuts benefiting mostly the super-rich.

They got a free ride for nearly 30 years.

They can pay it back.

Simply rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% = payback on the entire SS TF in 10 years.

Well off, no doubt, but people making $90,000 are hardly "the rich". So no, the programs are not funded primarily by the wealthy.

"They got a free ride for nearly 30 years.

They can pay it back."

That's not the plan. Current workers (remember that income cap? :hi: ) are going to "pay it back" despite the fact that they never got the funds in the first place.

supposed to be funded by income taxes.

Instead, SS excess collections (from labor) were borrowed into the General Budget, & the income taxes of the rich were reduced. For 30 years.

Not only will the trust fund have to be "paid back", but taxes will have to be raised (or spending slashed) to compensate for the fact that the general fund will no longer be able to steal from the so-called "trust fund" in the first instance.

And you believe that the "wealthy" will be the only ones affected by this (as if workers don't pay income tax!) such that you are willing to argue against progressive taxation and benefits lest it be called "welfare"? It's hard to swallow a putative Marxist who rejects progressive taxation and benefits, so I have a hard time figuring out if you're for real. :hi:

& they pay it mostly out of capital, not labor income.

2. Most americans pay more in SS tax than income tax.

3. The top tier has gotten 30 years of tax reductions on the back of everyone else;

4. they take home the majority share of income in the US;

5. Simply rescinding Bush's tax cuts to this group (top 1%) will pay off the TF in 10 years.

6. Repayment of TF monies & return to the original pay-go principles would have the added benefit of reducing interest payments on the federal debt (since the borrowed SS $ is one of the biggest chunks of US debt) = saving $ or freeing funds for other purposes.




You have no idea what you're talking about; this *is* progressive taxation.

It is possible to pay off the TF in 10 years without raising taxes on anyone but the top 1%.

"& they pay it mostly out of capital, not labor income."

And capital gains are taxed at a far lower rate than wages (not to mention not being subject to Medicare/SS taxes!) :hi:

"You have no idea what you're talking about; this *is* progressive taxation.

It is possible to pay off the TF in 10 years without raising taxes on anyone but the top 1%"

No, "progressive" taxation means that the rich pay a larger, not a smaller proportion of their incomes in taxes. That is certainly not the case today. So, given the disparate rates at which wage and capital gains income are taxed, the status quo of taxation of income is absolutely *not* progressive. Moreover, talking about what is "possible" isn't much use. We could balance the budget immediately by slashing the military budget. We will not.

At any rate, claiming that Social Security shouldn't be progressive (not just with regard to taxation, by the way, but also as to benefit!) because the income tax scheme is progressive (setting aside the fact that it is, in reality, not progressive at all,) is an oddball argument, to be sure. I think a better argument is that the existant of Medicare for a select few paid out the pockets of the many creates a powerful incentive for current beneficiaries to fight any extension of the program to others.

Surely, a true advocate for the people would demand Medicare be extended to all, rather than defend the status quo. :hi:

Raise income taxes at the top; on cap gains & income.

Let the folks who got the free ride for 30 years pay off the TF.

That funds SS though the boomers' demise.

For some reason, you want to lend the rich even MORE money.

"Raise income taxes at the top; on cap gains & income."

Agreed. But as of today, the rich pay a far smaller percentage of their income as federal income tax than do working people. And they pay zero Medicare and SS out their Capital Gains income.

"Let the folks who got the free ride for 30 years pay off the TF."

Not likely to happen. Taxes will be raised, benefits cut. The poor and working people rely on the programs that will undoubtedly be cut much more than do the rich, of course.

"That funds SS though the boomers' demise."

Errrr, I'm a bit younger than you, obviously. What comes after the boomer's demise? (Remember the "intergenerational compact" argument you were just making?) This is the most infuriating argument I hear on a regular basis.

"For some reason, you want to lend the rich even MORE money. "

I have no idea what you mean by this. I want to means test SS and remove the income cap. I also want to extend Medicare to everyone. Again, I simply do not understand your argument that a non-progressive (non-means tested) Social Security (or Medicare) system is desirable because our tax code could be made more progressive at some future date. It should not need to be pointed out that all your "simple" reforms have not been made (or even proposed by anyone with any influence whatever) as of today's date.

- The tax code is changed every presidency; reagan, bush 1, clinton, bush 2, each administration changed the code & rates. It can & will be changed again.


2. "the rich pay a far smaller percentage of their income as federal income tax than do working people"

- False.


3. "Not likely to happen"

- See your post #24, where you say: "So we can never do anything progressive, because the rich will object? That's not a good argument..."

Seems you only think it's "not a good argument" when it comes to increasing SS taxes, the policy supported by the rich & by capital.

However, according to you, INCOME taxes on the rich & capital can't be raised, because the rulers won't allow it.


Stop trying to sell this orwellian bait & switch as "progressive".

Is this debate taking place in a parallel universe?

"Seems you only think it's "not a good argument" when it comes to increasing SS taxes, the policy supported by the rich & by capital."

I think you are mischaracterizing my arguments to bolster your own. I support increasing SS taxes; I've said so half a dozen times in this thread. Should I post it in a larger font?

"However, according to you, INCOME taxes on the rich & capital can't be raised, because the rulers won't allow it. "

Your arguments are subject to the exact same critique: if we cannot make SS benefit payments progressive because it will anger the rich, how will we manage to raise their capital gains taxes? :shrug:

"Stop trying to sell this orwellian bait & switch as "progressive"."

I probably deserve this level of vitriol for questioning your motives. I apologize. Truth is, a "Marxist" who argues against progressive benefits bewilders me. I believe you are sincere in your desire to help the greatest number of Americans, however, and I can assure you I am too. I just disagree with your assessment. It still makes no sense to me.

2 trillion in surplus SS taxes were used to fund tax cuts for the coupon-clipping class.

They'd like nothing better than to raise the cap on SS & keep their INCOME & CAPITAL GAINS taxes low.

They don't pay much in the way of SS tax, because they don't make most of their money by working for wages.

"if we cannot make SS benefit payments progressive because it will anger the rich, how will we manage to raise their capital gains taxes?"

Raising the cap won't "anger the rich," it's the policy desired by the rich.

The truly rich don't pay SS for the most part, SS is a tax on LABOR.

You want to increase the tax hit on high-paid labor, who are already taxed at high rates both on income & on SS.

Then you want to "means-test" it, so not only does high-paid labor have to fund the lions' share of SS, they also won't be able to collect anything.

In other words, you want to create a constituency to destroy SS.

Bullshit on your "progressive" ideas; yours is the programme of capital.

"You want to increase the tax hit on high-paid labor, who are already taxed at high rates both on income & on SS."

I want high-paid labor to pay the same percentage of their income in Social Security as everybody else. Again, what kind of "Marxist" could oppose this? :shrug:

"Then you want to "means-test" it, so not only does high-paid labor have to fund the lions' share of SS, they also won't be able to collect anything."

You surely spend a great deal of time worrying about the highest paid among us. Care to shed a tear or two for those of us living at the margins? :hi:

"In other words, you want to create a constituency to destroy SS. "

And you want to leave my generations' retirement prospects to the chance that our tax code will be made more progressive at some time in the future, and that taxes on the rich might be raised at some point. Oh, and the same "constituency to destroy SS" that you posit will oppose this tooth and nail. :silly:

proposal is supported by capital; it breaks the constituency in support of SS.

The exact programme advocated by the Cato Institute in 1982.

for 70 years.

Surplus = borrowed. If you have a problem with that, better not put your money in a bank.

make it "welfare" when it is already a transfer of funds from one group to another from whom the transferor never received anything in the first place (the very definition of "welfare"). All this talk of "paying back" has to be couched in so many air-quotes and qualifications specifically because no one is "paying back" anything--the baby boomers didn't pay for my retirement, after all!

I support Medicare for all and removing the income cap on SS (benefit cap remains.) This stuff about this making the program "welfare" is nonsensical.

1982 up to the present they paid 1 to 2% on top of that, supposedly to "prefund" their own retirements.

Hate to break it to you, but the boomers have been paying the extra freight imposed by Reagan most of their working lives.

So far you haven't paid jack shit for many boomers, since the oldest ones = 63.

for supporting your own parents. :hi:

"Hate to break it to you, but the boomers have been paying the extra freight imposed by Reagan most of their working lives.

So far you haven't paid jack shit for many boomers, since the oldest ones = 63."

Hate to break it to you: I want to expand Medicare to include even those who haven't paid squat. This "balance sheet" theory of the provision of basic healthcare services has no currency with me (not the least of which because it is illogical.) I pay into Medicare; I should be able to use it*. And I'm willing to pay higher taxes AND rescind the Bush tax cuts to get there. As well as dismantling our imperialist war machine. :hi:

*I'm fully insured, for the record. I want healthcare for all for the benefit of my community and my country.

The same in the sense that it would crash if we stopped collecting, benefits would end, it wasn't a savings account.

And it was solvent as long as the population grew and grew and grew.

It's no longer sustainable, if it ever was (in its design).

:patriot:

for everyone else. (If the rich don't receive government largesse, they might oppose government help for poor people...uh, even more, I guess.)

Thus argues the poster with the Marx avatar. Strange world.

Anything less will perpetuate our misery and further the divide.

will force a major restructuring of the tax code, and that the rich, by virtue of the fact that they pay more in absolute numbers in taxes will inordinately bear the burden of paying these monies back. Therefore, opposing a means test is "progressive".

A secondary argument is that the rich will oppose a progressive formulation of Social Security benefit payments; transfers of taxpayer dollars to the well to do are the price to be paid for the rest of us to be allowed in to the program.

There are major problems with both of these arguments, not the least of which is that they are in tension with one another: the same powerful, wealthy interests who would torpedo a more progressive formulation of Social Security could assuredly similarly stymie a more progressive implementation of the IRS Code--especially with so much more on the line! :shrug:

wasn't paid out as benefits, & it's drawing interest.

= "Savings"

The monies will come from current taxes. There's no trust fund, and the "interest" is simply a further liability.

"= 'Savings'"

The money I earn at my employment is not your "savings".

So the people who receive care and the people who pay for it are two different groups. The "welfare" argument simply doesn't make sense.

I think you are required to pay in for at least 10 years or no benefits.

And your SS benefits are tied to what you have paid in. If you haven't paid in you don't get much.

I know both of my parents did and they paid into the system over 30 years.

all wage workers who become disabled or reach the eligibility age receive SS.

the state will pick up cost. It's called a State buy-in for beneficiaries who are in poverty.

They pay more as a % of their income while working but there is a cap.

Due to the cap the % is not the say.

The % is 1.45% (and your employer matches it).
The cap is $106K

So
$10K earner = 1.45%
$20K earner = 1.45%
$60K earner = 1.45%
$106K earner = 1.45%

$500K earner = 1.45% of ONLY the income up to $106K.

www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

Social Security taxes 2008 2009
Employee/employer (each)
6.2% on earnings up to $102,000
6.2% on earnings up to $106,800

Self-employed
*Can be offset by income tax provisions 12.4%* on earnings up to $102,000
12.4%* on earnings up to $106,800

Medicare taxes 2008 2009
Employee/employer (each)
1.45% on all earnings
1.45% on all earnings

Self-employed
*Can be offset by income tax provisions 2.9%* on all earnings
2.9%* on all earnings

For Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program, the taxable maximum was the same as that for the OASDI program for 1966-1990. Separate HI taxable maximums of $125,000, $130,200, and $135,000 were applicable in 1991-93, respectively. After 1993, there has been no limitation on HI-taxable earnings. Tax rates under the HI program are 1.45 percent for employees and employers, each, and 2.90 percent for self-employed persons.

Looks like the cap was removed in 1994. Thanks.

of about $95 / month for recipients -- this is in addition to the money collected from FICA taxes.

Part B premiums are increased for singles making more than 85K per year and married couples making more than 170K per year. Further info at:

http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100

(Scroll to the bottom.)

Low income Medicare beneficiaries owe the same premium as the richest recipient; however, there are programs in Medicaid that will pay the premium.

Those programs are based on income -- not assets like most Medicaid programs -- so they are available to people who want to keep their house, savings, etc.

to convince the ignorant that they were "welfare" and that "real Americans" save millions for their old age.

Letting a few millionaires collect SS and use Medicare is a small price to pay for covering everyone else.

Universal means universal, and in countries with universal health care, everyone is eligible, including millionaires, although in some places, they have the option to seek medical care outside the national system.

(I don't know about other countries, but in Japan, your national health and other assessments depend on your previous year's income--there may be a cap, but I don't know what it is. This is great for foreigners who live there only a year, because they are charged the rock-bottom price. It's not so great for people who had high incomes and then lose their jobs. Unfortunately, such a system would inspire the radio jocks here to intensify their campaign against abusing millionaires.)

Look at how many other programs have been attacked and destroyed by the right.

SS & Medicare endure because it is an EVERYONE system.

I am not relying on SS I think the benefits will be too small by the time I retire.
It will help though so I am hundreds of millions of Americans have a vested interest in ensuring it survives.

Make it means tested today and in 2010 the spin will be "The $5 Trillion dollar Obmama WELFARE scam".

For what ever reason Americans don't really give a shit about the poor so it will work.

Sure a tiny % of people don't need it but keeping them in the loop is protection that ensure SS & Medicare wont every go away.

That's not a good argument against progressive taxation and government benefits, imo.

Rich pay far more into it then they will ever collect.
They pay more into Medicare for the same level of service.

Compare that to private healthcare where the rich PAY LESS OUT OF POCKET (via good employer healthplans) for MORE SERVICE.


We can make SS even MORE progressive by raising or removing the cap on SS deductions.
We could make Medicare more progressive by making the monthly premium operate on a sliding scale.

Or we can kill it by turning it into welfare.

SS/Medicare are the single greatest progressive social programs created.
They survived when most are destroyed.

It would be foolish to not at least look why. Universal participation.

"Rich pay far more into it then they will ever collect."

I think you'll need to provide some evidence of this. My understanding is that the average recipient of Federal old age benefits collects far more than they've contributed. Since SS contributions are capped at a relatively low level of income, I am dubious that even the very rich contribute more into SS than they receive.

I don't think anyone pretends that Medicare has ever paid for itself via patients' contributions.

"Or we can kill it by turning it into welfare."

I've already demonstrated quite clearly that both programs are already "welfare"; the people who pay for these programs are not the same people who receive the benefit.

to universal health care or old-age benefits, not even the outright socialist, high-tax countries of Western Europe.

I'm all for progressive taxation, but means-testing social security is a favorite Republican and Republican Lite idea, because they know that it will reduce support for that program among the rich and nasty.

Keeping benefits universal is a way of using the greedheads' greed against them. :evilgrin:

That's the real issue.

"Keeping benefits universal is a way of using the greedheads' greed against them."

The benefits aren't universal at all. There are 50-60 million people in this country without healthcare access.

You were advocating means testing for Social Security and Medicare, while I was saying that of the OTHER COUNTRIES that have government old age benefits and health care, none of them have income qualifications.

Reading comprehension, Romulox. Reading comprehension.

We don't.

"You were advocating means testing for Social Security and Medicare, while I was saying that of the OTHER COUNTRIES that have government old age benefits and health care, none of them have income qualifications."

And I was pointing out that all of these countries have UHC. We don't, and yet we all pay for Medicare. You are pointing out a similarity, and I'm pointing out a major distinction. This is the back and forth that makes up a conversation! :hi:

in the way it is paid out.

It is based on a bendpoints formula that greatly helps the poor.

If a person pays in 10 X more in ss premiums over his life than another person his benefit is only about 2 X as large.

The premiums aren't progressive but the payout formula is.

remove the income cap while implementing a benefit cap. The wealthy may still collect some nominal sum to make the whole scheme "not welfare".

Now the program is more progressive, more sustainable, and more fair to the generations that follow the boomers.

they borrowed from SS.

Something you say can't be done, because the rich will object.

You're all for increasing taxes on high-paid labor, though. You're all for destroying the original design of the SS system, which has paid in full, on time, for 70 years, the longest-running, most stable retirement system, public or private, in the world.

Your plan = good news for the rich, the feds can keep borrowing surplus SS collections to fund the general budget & the rich can keep their INCOME & CAPITAL gains tax cuts, & never pay back what they borrowed.

The SS borrowing keeps federal debt high, so the rich can also loan money to the feds & keep those juicy interest payments coming in.

The super-rich make money coming & going that way.

Without it as the ratio of retired : working grows SS & Medicare will become unmanageable.

The funds from the trust fund would provide a shock absorber.

Most people don't realize how radically the aging of the baby boomers and their removal from the labor pool will be.
It is the largest demographic shift in modern history.

The trust fund MUST be repaid. Any other methods of dealing with revenue shortfall will be a divide and conquer approach to destroying SS & Medicare.

Now as to how the trust fund should be repaid?
A moderate (not massive) tax increase, combined with a balanced budget/paygo amendment with real teeth, and a substantial 30% reduction in military spending phased in over a decade.

Also I know it will piss a lot of people off by while we are at it the govt does need to look hard at services and reduce/cut some of them.

We can't keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. I would even go so far as to say any paygo ammendment locks in interest cost of debt + 2% repayment as "unspendable" funds.

But, the private sector millionaires.

I would venture that they just set aside a million dollars in a fund somewhere as their "medical fund". It gathers interest at a high rate reserved by the banks for millionaires (we get about 1% they get about 10%).

I also wonder if they make use of on-call, concierge doctors. Doctors that make house calls several times a year and get paid about $10,000 or so per call.

I don't recall ever seeing a millionaire waiting at a doctor's office to be seen.

I see millionaires waiting in doctor's offices all of the time. Perhaps that is because I take my own parents to the doctor and have actual knowledge about the subject.

I have dirt poor friends who don't take part B and are therefore at the mercy of Medicaid and whichever way the wind blows. Part A (hospitalization) is free. This is one of the reasons the ER gets the brunt of the burden because old people who aren't going to the doctor end up there and end up being hospitalized for medical conditions that could have been cured much more cheaply in the earlier stages.

You should start this thread over and begin by recognizing that you should indicate if you are discussing the issue for current workers or retired citizens.

This over-simplifies but:
Current workers pay into Medicare on all of their income - no cap.
Retirees begin receiving Medicare benefits at 65 (but while receiving Medicare benefits continue to pay in) and it is based on a graduated scale.

How much are the 2009 monthly premiums for Medicare Part B?


Answer
Most people will pay the standard monthly Part B premium of $96.40 in 2009. Some people will pay a higher premium based on their modified adjusted gross income.

Your monthly premium will be higher if you file an individual tax return and your annual income is more than $85,000, or if you are married (file a joint tax return) and your annual income is more than $170,000.

If you meet these criteria, Social Security will use the income reported two years ago on your IRS income tax return to determine your premium (if unavailable, SSA will use income from three years ago). For example, the income reported on your 2007 tax return will be used to determine your monthly Part B premium in 2009. If your income has decreased since 2007, you can ask that the income from a more recent tax year be used to determine your premium, but you must meet certain criteria.

At the end of each year, Social Security will send you a letter if your Part B premium will increase based on the level of your income and to tell you what you can do if you disagree. For more information about Part B premiums based on income, call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213. TTY users should call 1-800-325-0778.

The chart below shows the Part B monthly premium amounts based on income.
These amounts change each year. There may be a late-enrollment penalty.

You Pay
If Your Yearly Income is

Single
Married Couple

$96.40
$85,000 or less
$170,000 or less

$134.90
$85,001-$107,000
$170,001-$214,000

$192.70
$107,001-$160,000
$214,001-$320,000

$250.50
$160,001-$213,000
$320,001-$426,000

$308.30
Above $213,000
Above $426,000




You Pay
If You Are Married but You File a Separate Tax Return From Your Spouse and Your Yearly Income is

$96.40
$85,000 or less

$250.50
$85,001-$128,000

$308.30
Above $128,000

Same rate, but on more money.