A Run on Gas

[miamited]

Crude is the supply the refineries use to produce the end product. When crude prices fell, the refineries were in a position to make tons of profit. Shutting down the refineries would not raise the price of crude, it would have the opposite effect. If the refineries are not refining the oil into useable products, the oil becomes worth less. Supply and demand.

Hi WIP

That is exactly correct, except that part that 'when crude prices fell, the refineries were in a position to make tons of profit. You don't seem to understand what my travel accounts explained. No one was making a 'ton of profits' when oil prices cratered because no one was buying the refined product. That's what caused the price of crude to crater in the first place. Yes, shutting down the refineries would raise the price of crude because it would increase demand.

Look, if I make a million widgets and business is good and I'm selling all my widgets, but suddenly 3/4'ths of the people who were buying my widgets stopped buying them and I continue to produce a million widgets, the price of my widgets is going to go down, no matter that it still costs me the same to make them, because no one is buying them. So in order for the retailer to get people to buy my widgets again, they lower the price. However, I've got to stop making so many widgets during this glut period or the price of widgets is going to continue to crater. But, if I cut my production down to 200 widgets, then the 500 people that are still buying my widgets will pay more for them because they will soon be in short supply.

It's exactly the same with fuel products. When the world was booming before the pandemic everyone was happy and gasoline stations were selling their daily allotment of gasoline and diesel. But then suddenly 3/4ths of the people stopped driving to work and flying across the country and taking the bus and leaving the driving to us. Now there are a couple of hundred thousand fuel stations across the country with tanks full of fuel that sit there for days and no one is calling the refiner and saying "Hey!! I need more gas!!" But guess what? The refiner is still making fuel!!

So now all the stations aren't selling their allotment of fuel any longer and the refiners are sitting with huge storage tanks chock a bloc full to the brim with more fuel being produced every day. But no one is buying the fuel. So, the refiner either has to stop producing or find someplace to pay for storing his product until it might, maybe sell months down the road. The refiner adjusts to the new reality and stops a large share of his production, but there's still millions of gallons of fuel out there in station storage tanks under the pumps that are full and they don't need any more fuel for a while. So, the price of all of the fuel drops so that people will buy more, but they don't because they can't drive anywhere to use it up. No one is putting in a 5,000 gal. fuel storage tank in their backyard.

So, the refiners keep cutting their production by closing wells and refineries and still no one is buying any fuel. Eventually they get production down to where they are only producing enough to supply the 1/4 of the population that is still using fuel. Mainly over the road haulers and shipping companies. At that point, the price for fuel will begin to stabilize to what is normal for 1/4 of the population that is still driving.

Then everybody gets happy and better again and because they've been cooped up for 2 years they want to get out and travel and vacation and visit the relatives, but the refiners have to adjust for the 'new' normal. Everyone is driving again and flying across the country and taking the bus and leaving the driving to us. But the refiners are still only producing a limited supply, although it is more than when only 1/4 of the population was driving, but it isn't enough for the entire nation to start driving again. So, just like when they created an acceptable price before by cutting production, now they have to start producing again, but they aren't keen to do that at full throttle yet.

The wells that were taken out of commission aren't restarted by just flipping a switch. They usually have to be capped and uncapping can take some time and many of the oil producers are saying, "Well hey! If we lag a bit at bringing production back up..."Now we can make a ton of money". Everybody is driving again and traveling and if we just keep a tight lid on production they'll soon be fighting for gas at the pumps. So the price now goes through the roof.

As I said in an earlier post. It will sort itself out, but it's going to take time. I read a transcript of one of the executives for one of the big oil companies the other day who pretty plainly said that they weren't ready to ramp up full production yet because they lost a 'ton of profits' over the last two years. Despite what you believe, oil companies were deep in the red 24- 12 months ago. You can go look at the P&L statements of the biggest oil producers and refiners to check that. So, now that they are making money again, if they can keep the price up while still producing measurably more product, NOW they can start making a 'ton of profit'. But it will settle out. OPEC+ will eventually increase production and the big oil refineries will begin to increase production and every one will get back to being fat and happy and making a reasonable living.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

Production hasn't kept up with the new demand?
What new demand?

Here people are buying electric cars and methane gas?? cars.

Is oil being used for things it wasn't used for a year or two ago?
Here they say it's due to the war with Ukraine and Russia.
Honestly, I've become ultra ignorant and really can't stand much more of this talk.
I mean, the food shortage to come, gas prices, humanity getting in the way of nature,
robotics, etc etc.

Well, I can't resolve all of your issues in one post, but I can explain what is meant by the 'new demand'. I see you're in Italy, but I'm assuming that it was the same there 2 years ago that it was here. Everyone was working from home that could get their job done from there. While I'm sure that some are buying electric and methane operated vehicles, you need to understand the big picture.

According to statista.com there are app. 39 million registered vehicles in Italy. Just because a million people buy electric or methane operated cars isn't going to make a huge dent in the fuel needed to operate the other 38 million ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) vehicles. However, if Italy was anything like the U.S. two years ago, pretty much no one was driving to work or taking vacations or going to see the relatives and the demand for fuel fell off the cliff. That was a 'new' demand. Now, everything is beginning to return to normal. People are back to work in the office, or at least beginning to. Everyone who was cramped up for two years wants to take a vacation and go see the relatives. That is producing a 'new' demand for fuel products. So when I speak of 'new' demand, I'm talking about going from what demand was like 24-12 months ago and what demand is like today for fuel products.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Corn Pop]

What happens when a economy is shut down in lockdowns and they create billions or trillions out of thin air and recklessly spend and give out billions or trillions depending where one lives in situmulous payments?.

It comes back to bite.

And who recieved most that billions or trillions, big business in subsidies.

 

[miamited]

What happens when a economy is shut down in lockdowns and they create billions or trillions out of thin air and recklessly spend and give out billions or trillions depending where one lives in situmulous payments?.

It comes back to bite.

And who recieved most that billions or trillions, big business in subsidies.

Hi kiwidan

I can't speak for how things are done down under, but here in the U.S. it has always been thus. As far back as the great depression of 29'-39' our national government has always taken the position that the easiest way to get through such tough economic times is for the government to support an ongoing economy until the people can once again do it for themselves.

Yes, there is some amount of fraud and malfeasance in any such endeavor, but personally I take the position that if what I do is for good and the recipient chooses to use it for evil...that's on him. I often give money to people on the street that certainly appear to be destitute. I've had friends who are, of course, more up to date on such matters, who will inform me that the person probably lives in a mansion on the beach and owns 3 Rolls Royces. That panhandling is just an easy way to make millions of dollars that they then stash in their trillion dollar bank accounts. While, of course, laughing at my generosity all the way to the bank. I tell them the same thing. I'm a believer that there is a God in heaven and that as one of His children I am tasked with offering help when needed and able. The Scriptures tell me that God looks at the heart. By this, I know that when God sees the transaction of my giving to someone looking and claiming to be destitute, I am doing right in His sight. If the person I give the money to then wants to go out and buy Rolls Royces or beer or drugs with the money, then God sees that also.

So, when the government attempts to help, but there are some that take advantage of that help illegally, then I'm not one to stand up and tell the government to stop helping. I'm the one that stands up and tells the thief to stop stealing!

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi kiwidan

I can't speak for how things are done down under, but here in the U.S. it has always been thus. As far back as the great depression of 29'-39' our national government has always taken the position that the easiest way to get through such tough economic times is for the government to support an ongoing economy until the people can once again do it for themselves.

Yes, there is some amount of fraud and malfeasance in any such endeavor, but personally I take the position that if what I do is for good and the recipient chooses to use it for evil...that's on him. I often give money to people on the street that certainly appear to be destitute. I've had friends who are, of course, more up to date on such matters, who will inform me that the person probably lives in a mansion on the beach and owns 3 Rolls Royces. That panhandling is just an easy way to make millions of dollars that they then stash in their trillion dollar bank accounts. While, of course, laughing at my generosity all the way to the bank. I tell them the same thing. I'm a believer that there is a God in heaven and that as one of His children I am tasked with offering help when needed and able. The Scriptures tell me that God looks at the heart. By this, I know that when God sees the transaction of my giving to someone looking and claiming to be destitute, I am doing right in His sight. If the person I give the money to then wants to go out and buy Rolls Royces or beer or drugs with the money, then God sees that also.

So, when the government attempts to help, but there are some that take advantage of that help illegally, then I'm not one to stand up and tell the government to stop helping. I'm the one that stands up and tells the thief to stop stealing!

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

Unless you make enough because you saved and have to fight in court for Medicare to pay for it.did so for my dad whose parents saved and places that in a trust .
Because I can work .my wife's disability is always taxed . I don't collectevely make over 50 grand a year .

Medicare and ss are taxes . If you want to save more you simply save it .not reduce income that is taxable and thus reducing savings ..

Because I likely will see minimal or no social security in my life .those younger then me will pay more into it to get less or none at all.

I know some who can save way better then any govt pension and did so and are retiring on that money .one never signed into the city pension plan until forced and invested his money and got more that way then city pension,now broke and not available for new employees.

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

I know some who can save way better then any govt pension and did so and are retiring on that money .one never signed into the city pension plan until forced and invested his money and got more that way then city pension,now broke and not available for new employees.

Absolutely!!! I happen to be one of them. My retirement income at present that I saved up is triple what SS pays me. But, I'm also realistic and I believe pragmatic in understanding that people like you and those you mentioned are in the minority. Most people, after living their working lives, don't have much saved up. In fact, a recent report on Marketwatch was saying that many people when they get to retirement age have less than $20k in savings. There is a vast majority of Americans who don't have access to employer sponsored 401k plans or retirement plans for which the employer pays a portion, outside of SS taxes.

Now some people are, "Hey, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and so can they!" types. However, I'm more of a "God has blessed me beyond measure and I should have no qualms with helping others who, for whatever reason, aren't prepared for these days." I have no qualms with having paid into SS all of my life, but I also realize that SS alone won't provide a decent retirement. But for many that's all they have! I choose mercy. I give to the beggar. I give to those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a less fortunate circumstance than I and God continues to bless me and I don't miss it or mind that giving to help out others. I rather hope that's the way our eternal existence will be. That each one will give that everyone has some and none too much or none too little.

People keep talking about SS going bankrupt, but so long as there is a SS tax that is an impossibility. There will always be some monies collected towards SS funding. Now, we may not be able to provide quite as much, but it will still be a sizeable piece of money for most people, especially those in real need. It's certainly more than welfare pays. Right now, the Democratic legislation has floated a plan to provide full SS benefits, even increasing them by a couple of hundred dollars, by merely raising the SS income limit. But that falls back on biblical teaching: For those who have much, much is expected. I'm personally not nearly as interested in making a few people uber wealthy, than in providing that everyone has a livable income.

People like Bill Gates and Donald Trump and Warren Buffet and the over $1million crowd will still be pretty well off if they are taxed an extra 6% of their incomes over $140,000. Even people who make $300k will still be doing well if they are taxed an extra 6% of their income. I'm not worried much that they're going to end up in the poor house unless they make unwise financial choices. Their giving up a little means that the poorest of the poor will have a little more. That's where my heart is. That everyone gets a livable income throughout their life. And, as I said earlier, I believe that's how life in eternity with God will be. There won't be any ultra rich, but everyone will have what they need.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi jasonc


Absolutely!!! I happen to be one of them. My retirement income at present that I saved up is triple what SS pays me. But, I'm also realistic and I believe pragmatic in understanding that people like you and those you mentioned are in the minority. Most people, after living their working lives, don't have much saved up. In fact, a recent report on Marketwatch was saying that many people when they get to retirement age have less than $20k in savings. There is a vast majority of Americans who don't have access to employer sponsored 401k plans or retirement plans for which the employer pays a portion, outside of SS taxes.

Now some people are, "Hey, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and so can they!" types. However, I'm more of a "God has blessed me beyond measure and I should have no qualms with helping others who, for whatever reason, aren't prepared for these days." I have no qualms with having paid into SS all of my life, but I also realize that SS alone won't provide a decent retirement. But for many that's all they have! I choose mercy. I give to the beggar. I give to those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a less fortunate circumstance than I and God continues to bless me and I don't miss it or mind that giving to help out others. I rather hope that's the way our eternal existence will be. That each one will give that everyone has some and none too much or none too little.

People keep talking about SS going bankrupt, but so long as there is a SS tax that is an impossibility. There will always be some monies collected towards SS funding. Now, we may not be able to provide quite as much, but it will still be a sizeable piece of money for most people, especially those in real need. It's certainly more than welfare pays. Right now, the Democratic legislation has floated a plan to provide full SS benefits, even increasing them by a couple of hundred dollars, by merely raising the SS income limit. But that falls back on biblical teaching: For those who have much, much is expected. I'm personally not nearly as interested in making a few people uber wealthy, than in providing that everyone has a livable income.

People like Bill Gates and Donald Trump and Warren Buffet and the over $1million crowd will still be pretty well off if they are taxed an extra 6% of their incomes over $140,000. Even people who make $300k will still be doing well if they are taxed an extra 6% of their income. I'm not worried much that they're going to end up in the poor house unless they make unwise financial choices. Their giving up a little means that the poorest of the poor will have a little more. That's where my heart is. That everyone gets a livable income throughout their life. And, as I said earlier, I believe that's how life in eternity with God will be. There won't be any ultra rich, but everyone will have what they need.

God bless,
Ted

Ss is a pay as you go.

Unless you have more putting into it and we don't .it will fail
There must be a more workers then those recieving.im taking about the program not disability which is a separate thing .

I pay 88 every two weeks into it out of my primary job .that should be matched .

I can invest that far better then any trustee as there isn't any actual investing of my money .I drop dead today .all that I invest into that goes to the state ,my wife gets 256 bucks


Not so with pensions .and or even military retirement.especially with 401 series or ira as those are given to the survivor .

To me that is a robbery . It would have been better to mandate that the employer and employee have a savings program .if self employed he or she can use a bank IRA savings

Perfect ,no ?

But we'll with the ever political push for higher wages and cheap housing and so on ,and borrowed money ,well printed .if 15 dollars isn't enough per hour and it's not .no social security savings will be.

Not many actually recieve that amount a month on ss .

 

[jasonc]

Also when they and I hear they did raise the max age of collection of SS,it affects Medicare .I can't go on Medicare until 70. My wife born before they cut off can . disability isn't quite the same as Medicare as that insurance isn't as good.not that it covers much .no dental or visual .

I prefer not to work that long to get Medicare fully .well I have the VA.

The problem with both sides is that one assumes that the market will ensure you get coverage .the other mandates it to be and ignores the nature of man .I'm not gonna work hard for you if I can go make more over there and Im good at what I do.nor does the state excel at keeping prices low .

Age and birth defects are risky for insurers .aging isn't cheap or for the timid .the left ignores how the VA despite known admission of the place denies coverage for vets over agent orange ,sarin ( gulf war syndrome),and burn pits .they will ride you out and deny ,deny and hope you die and your family might get something.but well what good did it do for that dead vet ?
See the camp lejeune water posoining.

The right ignores that insurance factors risk and while you can argue it will be cheaper for some .when you are old or have prexistant conditions ,based on my experience they like to delay paying and also see how Florida has a problem with homeowner insurance.this is in part due to law suits .that also effects costs . Profit is how we work and it's not a good way all the time .

There is no profit to help the poor .

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

There is no profit to help the poor .

Which is exactly why we need programs to help them, such as SS. However, SS, unlike many other 'help the poor programs' at some point if one lives long enough, helps everyone. Both the rich and the poor get SS when their day comes. SS is, I believe, a good program and it's now been in operation for almost 90 years. Yes, it's going to always need some adjustments from time to time, but the program works and has worked for nearly 90 years.

I can't, of course, speak to your specific situation as I have no earthly idea what it's really like, but social programs, overall, are designed to help those less fortunate, and I'm all for that. Will some take advantage? Sure! Absolutely!! And I condemn that, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water...so to speak. I'm also willing to allow God to be the judge or such things. Me? God asks me to be mindful and merciful to others.

I also try to steer well clear of the 'logic of generalization'. If I see one person driving their brand new $75k Cadillac Escalade up to the door of the welfare office, I'm not going to start with the "everybody on welfare drives Cadillacs". I don't know that person's situation either. Maybe it's their neighbor, or a family member, giving them a ride to the welfare office. If I see one person cheating on their income taxes, I'm not one to start claiming that everyone cheats on their taxes. And I really mean a few rather than just one. If I see 10 people over a week driving Cadillac Escalades to the welfare office, I understand that those 10 are just a drop in a very, very large bucket.

Someone earlier posted about people in Italy buying electric and methane driven vehicles and asked why there should be new demand for gasoline. They had fallen into that trap where they had read of several thousand people buying such cars and went to the "everybody's doing...." I pointed out to them that there are over 39 million registered vehicles in Italy. That a few thousand people buying electric and methane vehicles isn't "everybody". In the grand scheme of things, it's a very, very, very small percentage of cars on the road and new car sales. If they quite making ICE today, it would be 8-10 years before they were mostly gone. I try to be very careful in making generalizations.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi jasonc


Which is exactly why we need programs to help them, such as SS. However, SS, unlike many other 'help the poor programs' at some point if one lives long enough, helps everyone. Both the rich and the poor get SS when their day comes. SS is, I believe, a good program and it's now been in operation for almost 90 years. Yes, it's going to always need some adjustments from time to time, but the program works and has worked for nearly 90 years.

I can't, of course, speak to your specific situation as I have no earthly idea what it's really like, but social programs, overall, are designed to help those less fortunate, and I'm all for that. Will some take advantage? Sure! Absolutely!! And I condemn that, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water...so to speak. I'm also willing to allow God to be the judge or such things. Me? God asks me to be mindful and merciful to others.

I also try to steer well clear of the 'logic of generalization'. If I see one person driving their brand new $75k Cadillac Escalade up to the door of the welfare office, I'm not going to start with the "everybody on welfare drives Cadillacs". I don't know that person's situation either. Maybe it's their neighbor, or a family member, giving them a ride to the welfare office. If I see one person cheating on their income taxes, I'm not one to start claiming that everyone cheats on their taxes. And I really mean a few rather than just one. If I see 10 people over a week driving Cadillac Escalades to the welfare office, I understand that those 10 are just a drop in a very, very large bucket.

Someone earlier posted about people in Italy buying electric and methane driven vehicles and asked why there should be new demand for gasoline. They had fallen into that trap where they had read of several thousand people buying such cars and went to the "everybody's doing...." I pointed out to them that there are over 39 million registered vehicles in Italy. That a few thousand people buying electric and methane vehicles isn't "everybody". In the grand scheme of things, it's a very, very, very small percentage of cars on the road and new car sales. If they quite making ICE today, it would be 8-10 years before they were mostly gone. I try to be very careful in making generalizations.

God bless,
Ted

You ignore this ,because I see it.

A govt entity sells power and electric.

It legally must run in the black per state law .people can't pay .they get cut off ,rich or poor .

A private utilities simply says no until you pay in full ,you will not receive it .

You can't give away that as its gotta come from somewhere .even the govt rations .
Next unless you have a large and we won't unless society changes on abortion and children .it's literally one person paying for their parents .you don't see that?

I read up on ss,as ss it says money will run out due to more retiring then workers putting in.ie my generation and the next to.its the baby boomers who are that .

You also don't see that the state uses lottery ,yup and targets the poor ,to pay for schools and tanf.

Those most likely to need it .

You assume that the private person's won't care?

I am a rated disabled vet ,I couldn't get the VA to pay for a need but a private non profit did . They paid for the septic field .

 

[jasonc]

On Average, People Who Earn Less Than $13,000 a Year in the U.S. Spend 5% of Their Gross Earnings on Lottery Tickets

It’s been called a voluntary tax on the poor and under educated, with people spending a whopping $60 billion a year in the United States alone on lottery tickets, most of which are purchased by low income individuals. (All total, about 20% of Americans play the lotto). Despite the high number of...

www.todayifoundout.com

 

[Corn Pop]

. I might have enough for a loaf of bread in my retirement fund when I retire.

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

I read up on ss,as ss it says money will run out due to more retiring then workers putting in.ie my generation and the next to.its the baby boomers who are that .

Then you need to find better sources for your knowledge. SS cannot run out of money so long as there is a SS tax. It is absolutely impossible. What may happen, if no changes are made, is that SS benefits may be reduced...some. It isn't just all going to disappear. Whatever article you read is not factual as regards that matter. Yes, I know that there are politicians and people misinformed who are trying to tell us that the program will run out of money, but that is an impossibility so long as there is a SS tax.

Over the 90 years of American's SS program there have often needed to be changes made in how the program operates. Consider that in 1937, the first year of the SS tax, the income limit was $3,000. Wow!!!! That $3k limit lasted until 1957. Guess why it was changed. In 1957 the taxable income limit was changed to $3,600 and that only lasted a couple of years. In 1955 it was raised to $4,200 and in 1959 $4,800. Since then, about every 2-3 years, the income limit is changed. Guess why that happens. It happens because we find that we cannot pay full benefits on the existing income limit.

The Evolution of Social Security's Taxable Maximum

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

So, changing the maximum taxable income has always been the way that we extend SS benefits and it's not any different today than it was in previous years. In fact, we have been changing the maximum income limit almost every year or two since the 1970's. So, SS isn't likely to ever go broke, but yes, workers will have to pay more in. Right now the OBM (Office of Budget and Management) predicts that by 2035 we will be forced to either cut benefits or increase collection through raising the percentage collected or the maximum taxable income. In the past it has generally been done by raising the maximum taxable income, although there have been times when the tax percentage was changed. It has been changed from the initial 1% tax to what is now 6.2%. That's no different today than it was in 1955.

However, no one who is familiar with how SS works is making any claim that SS will go broke. There will have to be changes made, which we've already made some 51 times or more since the inception of the SS program.

Don't drink the Kool-aide my friend.

You also don't see that the state uses lottery ,yup and targets the poor ,to pay for schools and tanf.

I do see that many states use lottery proceeds to pay for school programs. I don't think it's a particularly good plan, but there do seem to be an awfully lot of people willing to gamble away their hard earned cash for the miniscule chance of getting some return. My sister and husband play the lotteries like there's no tomorrow. He probably gambles away $100/month on chance tickets, but they also enjoy trips to casinos to gamble away their money. It's what they do for fun. Me, I think it's the most foolish way in the world to throw away your money, but I'm not them. He's one who has just retired and other than his wife's (my sister's) nice pension, he'd have nothing but SS to live on. They brag all the time about how much money they make gambling and yet their home is a dump, their cars are running on 3 cylinders, and my sister (another sister) had to pay for their airline ticket for them to fly out to CA to visit her. It's just nuts to me, but they're perfectly happy! Go figure. So, while I'm not a big proponent of funding schools with lottery money, if people are willing to play so much I suppose it's a good thing that we get some sort of social reward from it. BTW lottery money is not used to pay for schools. The money is used to supplement educational expenses. We still all pay property taxes that fund the majority of school operation expenses.

I am a rated disabled vet ,I couldn't get the VA to pay for a need but a private non profit did . They paid for the septic field .

I'm glad that you were able to get your septic field replaced. Honestly, I'm not sure that's something that the VA would or should be liable for. However, I'm not a disabled vet and so I have no personal knowledge of what they do for vets. SS won't replace your septic field either, although they will give you the money to be able to have it done. I know I had one replaced in Miami and it cost about $3,000.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Medicare doesn't pay for nursing home

Hi jasonc

Then you need to find better sources for your knowledge. SS cannot run out of money so long as there is a SS tax. It is absolutely impossible. What may happen, if no changes are made, is that SS benefits may be reduced...some. It isn't just all going to disappear. Whatever article you read is not factual as regards that matter. Yes, I know that there are politicians and people misinformed who are trying to tell us that the program will run out of money, but that is an impossibility so long as there is a SS tax.

Over the 90 years of American's SS program there have often needed to be changes made in how the program operates. Consider that in 1937, the first year of the SS tax, the income limit was $3,000. Wow!!!! That $3k limit lasted until 1957. Guess why it was changed. In 1957 the taxable income limit was changed to $3,600 and that only lasted a couple of years. In 1955 it was raised to $4,200 and in 1959 $4,800. Since then, about every 2-3 years, the income limit is changed. Guess why that happens. It happens because we find that we cannot pay full benefits on the existing income limit.

The Evolution of Social Security's Taxable Maximum

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

So, changing the maximum taxable income has always been the way that we extend SS benefits and it's not any different today than it was in previous years. In fact, we have been changing the maximum income limit almost every year or two since the 1970's. So, SS isn't likely to ever go broke, but yes, workers will have to pay more in. Right now the OBM (Office of Budget and Management) predicts that by 2035 we will be forced to either cut benefits or increase collection through raising the percentage collected or the maximum taxable income. In the past it has generally been done by raising the maximum taxable income, although there have been times when the tax percentage was changed. It has been changed from the initial 1% tax to what is now 6.2%. That's no different today than it was in 1955.

However, no one who is familiar with how SS works is making any claim that SS will go broke. There will have to be changes made, which we've already made some 51 times or more since the inception of the SS program.

Don't drink the Kool-aide my friend.


I do see that many states use lottery proceeds to pay for school programs. I don't think it's a particularly good plan, but there do seem to be an awfully lot of people willing to gamble away their hard earned cash for the miniscule chance of getting some return. My sister and husband play the lotteries like there's no tomorrow. He probably gambles away $100/month on chance tickets, but they also enjoy trips to casinos to gamble away their money. It's what they do for fun. Me, I think it's the most foolish way in the world to throw away your money, but I'm not them. He's one who has just retired and other than his wife's (my sister's) nice pension, he'd have nothing but SS to live on. They brag all the time about how much money they make gambling and yet their home is a dump, their cars are running on 3 cylinders, and my sister (another sister) had to pay for their airline ticket for them to fly out to CA to visit her. It's just nuts to me, but they're perfectly happy! Go figure. So, while I'm not a big proponent of funding schools with lottery money, if people are willing to play so much I suppose it's a good thing that we get some sort of social reward from it. BTW lottery money is not used to pay for schools. The money is used to supplement educational expenses. We still all pay property taxes that fund the majority of school operation expenses.


I'm glad that you were able to get your septic field replaced. Honestly, I'm not sure that's something that the VA would or should be liable for. However, I'm not a disabled vet and so I have no personal knowledge of what they do for vets. SS won't replace your septic field either, although they will give you the money to be able to have it done. I know I had one replaced in Miami and it cost about $3,000.

God bless,
Ted

Uhm so long as we just tax it right .it always be there ?

You haven't had a pension program reduced .I have

The VA has yanked that and no you don't get get both .

You get one or the other .no way I make that level.

So why do you fight for a program. Argued as a tax on the nation before the courts and then sold as a safety net when in Germany the govt collects no tax for it's safety net and simply mandates you invest in a private fund and matches it only you can touch it not them .

I stand corrected on GERMANY

 

[jasonc]

The VA pays for housing ,it also pays for somethings .it makes no sense to have well he can't work so the VA since it's not connected to us .just let him die.

At 100 percent they cover it all .and your spouse under Tricare .

I can work and don't need that .

 

[jasonc]

It's time to end Social Security for the rich

The long-term finances of Social Security are in bad shape. Its reserves are expected to run out in less than 20 years, and under current law that will force cuts in benefits.

www.brookings.edu

 

[miamited]

It's time to end Social Security for the rich

The long-term finances of Social Security are in bad shape. Its reserves are expected to run out in less than 20 years, and under current law that will force cuts in benefits.

www.brookings.edu

Hi jasonc

Yes, that article says exactly what I've said. However, I don't agree with cutting benefits to the wealthy. Doing that then means they aren't receiving the benefits that they've paid for all of their lives. It isn't a lot of money and so the wealthy probably don't even think about it, but it isn't fair to tax them and then not give them anything for their monies. I believe the practice that we have always followed is sufficient and at least somewhat fair. Everyone gets benefits, but by increasing the maximum taxable income limit, the wealthy will pay in more for those benefits in their working years.

Either way, as the article says, SS is not going bankrupt or going to end, so long as there are SS tax collections. Notice that the article starts off saying 'under current law'. Well 'current law' has now been changed more than 50 times over the last 90 years for just the very reason that this article is claiming. Yes, if we do nothing, which is never how we've handled this issue in the past, SS will not be able to fully fund what are now full benefits to retirees. But just as we've done in the past, and what the Democratic initiative is trying to do now, by getting ahead of the game, we just have to increase the maximum taxable income limit once again. It's really just that simple and we've done it over 50 times before.

Otherwise, the article does have some merit in proposing other changes, but I'm not sure they're going to be good. One of the problems with their plan of making changes slowly so that people can prepare, ignores the long proven fact that most people don't prepare for what isn't staring them in the face at the moment.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi jasonc

Yes, that article says exactly what I've said. However, I don't agree with cutting benefits to the wealthy. Doing that then means they aren't receiving the benefits that they've paid for all of their lives. It isn't a lot of money and so the wealthy probably don't even think about it, but it isn't fair to tax them and then not give them anything for their monies. I believe the practice that we have always followed is sufficient and at least somewhat fair. Everyone gets benefits, but by increasing the maximum taxable income limit, the wealthy will pay in more for those benefits in their working years.

Either way, as the article says, SS is not going bankrupt or going to end, so long as there are SS tax collections. Notice that the article starts off saying 'under current law'. Well 'current law' has now been changed more than 50 times over the last 90 years for just the very reason that this article is claiming. Yes, if we do nothing, which is never how we've handled this issue in the past, SS will not be able to fully fund what are now full benefits to retirees. But just as we've done in the past, and what the Democratic initiative is trying to do now, by getting ahead of the game, we just have to increase the maximum taxable income limit once again. It's really just that simple and we've done it over 50 times before.

Otherwise, the article does have some merit in proposing other changes, but I'm not sure they're going to be good. One of the problems with their plan of making changes slowly so that people can prepare, ignores the long proven fact that most people don't prepare for what isn't staring them in the face at the moment.

God bless,
Ted

They don't need it .
Your proposal is to simply increase age ,decrease the amount .that isn't any different


A person retired at 94 who has a 5000 sft house that uses so much power they are charged commercial usage won't miss that money he spends that on his water bill and or electric

 

[miamited]

They don't need it .
Your proposal is to simply increase age ,decrease the amount .that isn't any different


A person retired at 94 who has a 5000 sft house that uses so much power they are charged commercial usage won't miss that money he spends that on his water bill and or electric

Hi jasonc

All that is true, but it still isn't fair to ask that person to pay into a national system for only the benefit of people of less wealth. Let the rich man have his $3k SS check. He paid for it and he earned it! You also now have created a new problem. Where do you draw the line? Who has too much money that they shouldn't get a SS check? What if some financial catastrophe should cause them to lose most of their wealth when they are 80? Do they then get to go back and make claims against SS?

My proposal is not at all what you've said here. I don't know where you got that I said anything about increasing age. I have also not proposed decreasing the amount. I agreed with your article that if we don't make any changes, (what they term 'under current law') then yes, SS payments will likely need to be decreased, but that isn't my proposal. My proposal is generally in line with what the Democratic initiative on SS is seeking to do. Increase the tax revenue coming in to SS by increasing the maximum taxable income limit. In doing that, we can continue to pay current benefits until the next need for some sort of adjustment is needed. While I'm not necessarily on board with their proposal in that they also want to give retirees a raise in their SS checks (about $200 is what I read), I'm not wholly against that. I do fine with the $2,400 that they currently give me, but that's because I also have supplemental retirement. If someone is living solely on their SS check, then the $200 increase would likely be a big help for them.

So please, if you're going to state my position for me, state it from the evidence of the testimony that I've already given in this matter. I believe I've written about 10 times that all we need to do is increase the maximum taxable income, which we have now done more than 50 times since the beginning of SS.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

I was curious about your statement at the bottom of your page about being nice and courteous, but having a plan to kill everyone you meet. I figured that must be something to do with the link about theaters. So I clicked on the link. Angle Rd in Ft Pierce Fl brings back a lot of memories for me. I used to work at a small finance office there called Eagle Finance and then I worked at the Goodyear downtown that was for years and years managed by Vince Bruno.

Anyway, I didn't see any reference to your mantra there and I was just wondering what might have prompted you to post such a statement?

God bless,
Ted