Page 1 of 4

Military Expenditures

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:38 pm
by Zute
Image

I had to do a double-take. At first I looked at it going... wait, where's the US? Then I realized that enormous block on the left WAS the US.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:03 am
by Fyyr
What is Saudi Arabia up to?

4.8 is not that really high.

There are plenty of my tax dollars, much more than 4.8, going to places where I disapprove.

Have you ever had to take care of a Medicare patient?

Thought so. Biggest bunch of whiners, complainers, no paying, assholes on the planet. They think they are queens and kings of feudal days of yore. And doctors and nurses are their servants and peons. It is amazing what universal healthcare does to Americans.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:11 pm
by Tudamorf
Fyyr wrote:4.8 is not that really high.

There are plenty of my tax dollars, much more than 4.8, going to places where I disapprove.
It's 4.8% of GDP, not 4.8% of taxes paid. It's equal to about 1/3 of personal and corporate taxes combined for 2010.

That seems awfully high to me, considering we rarely do anything productive with it.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:11 pm
by Zute
Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes isn't it? I've been paying into it all my working life, just like SS. I don't quite see how you can call it free.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:03 pm
by Gunny Burlfoot
Zute wrote:Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes isn't it? I've been paying into it all my working life, just like SS. I don't quite see how you can call it free.
It's not free; for women, it's a 229.8% return on every dollar you put in.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the ... n-for-many

Just in case you don't click through to the article, or click through that to the original study:

Single woman, paying in from 25-64, making average salary:

For Medicare, she would enjoy a net gain of $131,000, receiving $188,000 in lifetime benefits and paying only $57,000 in Medicare taxes, assuming all is average.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:01 pm
by Zute
Is that actual expenses to the Medicare system, or based on what you'd pay if you bought those services without any sort of insurance. Medicare negotiates hard to get cheaper services.

I'm sure that people actually using their insurance for costly diseases actually use more resources than they put into it, in the private sector. Me... I play my $560 a month and don't use it at all.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:30 pm
by Tudamorf
Zute wrote:Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes isn't it? I've been paying into it all my working life, just like SS. I don't quite see how you can call it free.
Because current users paid next to nothing back in the day when they were working -- if they were working at all -- since the tax rate back in the day was much lower.

Furthermore, today there is no income cap on the tax, meaning you pay 2.9 cents out of every dollar of profit you make into the system. So unlike Social Security, rich people pay a disproportionately high amount.

In other words, Medicare is currently supported by rich people who are not eligible for it, not by the former contributions of those who are.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:12 pm
by Gunny Burlfoot
Tudamorf wrote:In other words, Medicare is currently supported by rich people who are not eligible for it, not by the former contributions of those who are.
According to the Medicare site, all who paid into the system for 10 years will get Medicare Part A once they hit 65.

http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibi ... asp#TabTop

Is there an income cutoff I missed on that site? There is one for both Social Security and Medicaid, but not seemingly Medicare.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:40 am
by Tudamorf
Gunny Burlfoot wrote:
Tudamorf wrote:In other words, Medicare is currently supported by rich people who are not eligible for it, not by the former contributions of those who are.
According to the Medicare site, all who paid into the system for 10 years will get Medicare Part A once they hit 65.
I didn't say that rich people wouldn't be eligible for it once they get older, but rather that rich people -- most of whom are NOT old and don't qualify yet -- are the ones currently paying for it all.

Medicare isn't some sort of HSA-like layaway program for old age, where you pay as you get older. It's a tax on rich people to help pay for all of the old people. Take away the rich people paying for it, and the system crumbles, no matter how much you paid in the past.

If you're relatively young now, and paying a fortune into the system, you shouldn't have any reasonable expectation of getting Medicare-like coverage when you turn 65.

Re: Military Expenditures

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:34 am
by Fyyr
Tudamorf wrote:
Fyyr wrote:4.8 is not that really high.

There are plenty of my tax dollars, much more than 4.8, going to places where I disapprove.
It's 4.8% of GDP, not 4.8% of taxes paid. It's equal to about 1/3 of personal and corporate taxes combined for 2010.

That seems awfully high to me, considering we rarely do anything productive with it.
Military spending is one of the only real Constitutional reasons to spend money.

Paying to feed Tyrone's baby, who knocked up Latisha,,,,,That's not really Constitutional. But you live in SF, so I know how you might disagree. Especially, when Tyrone has no intention of feeding his own fucking kid.

I have a problem with that.

I have an innate, and real problem with working to feed the kids of other men, who have no intention on feeding their own kids.

Call me extreme if you like.. but in my book, that's stealing.