Click pic for more info



  1. sargasso_c says:

    I have millionaire neighbours in their 70′s who not only receive a pension, bus card and subsidised medical, but who are also legally resident in another country where they also get them.

    • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

      I missed the chance to have dual citizenship. At the time, google told me US citizens could not do it. Either I read it wrong, or things changed.

      But here is another dual resident situation I find humorous in context with discussions of Million dollar Net Worth Individuals being “poor”:

      One foreign source USA citizen threatening an illegal USA worker with deportation rather than fix whatever was wrong with a 1200/mth apartment:

      http://10news.com/news/lawsuit-claims-landlord-let-apartment-fall-apart-threatened-deportation-030513

      Would Provence be too much change for me? Somehow, I have become very comfortable in my rut. When you have your health, you truly have 99% of all you need….general assumptions applying.

  2. The Jeckel says:

    It seems unfair as hell, I know! But if this really isn’t a tax as all the politicians keep telling us then everyone who pays into it should be allowed to receive benefits when they retire or if they become disabled. That’s whey FDR (much like Obama and his new health care laws) implemented it – so that no American goes homeless and can live when they are at their most vulnerable.

    What seems so “unfair” is how some people – poor people even – are able to provide for themselves without Social Security and yet still get it. But if anyone is forced to pay into it then everyone who pays should at least be able to get their “fair share” back when they are essentially forced to retire. After all, it’s just fair (socialism) that way.

    But the way Social Security is treated is exactly like a tax so I do understand the confusion. But you must not let this illusion of Social Security being a tax influence your decision simply because our politicians have perverted and robbed the program over the years as if it were a tax (this is Obama talking). In fact, the last major perversion of Social Security was to tax Social Security benefits as if it were an income! And Al Gore – a Democrat during the Clinton Years – was the deciding vote that made it all happen. (And these new generation liberals actually wonder why older people generally hate left wingers. HA!)

    Now, if you want to be good little liberals and hate rich people then try taking a long hard look at the banks (possibly where where you bank even), Wall Street, the Insurance business and generally the Financial Industry. The people who work or control those programs are your real evil rich guy targets. Not necessarily rich Social Security recipients. Stories like this are there to hopefully throw you off track. So go get em! And don’t forget that military spending far out shadows almost every other governmental program in existence – you might like to ask why?! (Why do we spend money we don’t have to kill people we don’t know over things we don’t care about?)

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Its rare to read so much BS cobbled together. I could parse it all but its all of a theme maximized by your statement:

      “What seems so “unfair” is how some people – poor people even – are able to provide for themselves without Social Security and yet still get it.” //// I guess this is along the lines that if you have a net worth of ONE MILLION DOLLARS that you are poor and your wealth is shit, but pray tell us==how do “poor people” get by in a way that makes getting social security unfair?

      Huh? Can you expand on that ass crack?

      I bet you can’t.

      Prove me Wrong.

      Idiot.

      • Troll says:

        You assume TOO MUCH! You (Bobo) said, I guess this is along the lines that if you have a net worth of ONE MILLION DOLLARS that you are poor …

        WHAT?! You guess that if someone has one million dollars that they are poor or rich or something? I saw no mention that poor people have millions of dollars or even a quarter! I did however see mention that there may be a few SMART people who happen to BE “poor” even by Obama’s definitions. And some of these “poor people” might not NEED the Social Security that they were FORCED to pay into all their lives. That’s probably because some of these “poor people” may have (unwittingly?) done smart things like SAVE and INVEST – or just not SPEND!

        So does that mean we should deny money that was FORCED from people who had pay into a program which had PROMISED to pay it back? If so, then call it what it really is, a TAX! And when you do that you might also note that everyone’s tax rate will more than DOUBLE! But then, that’s not exactly a very smart political move, now is it?

        I suppose anyone in your world of goose stepping communists – er – liberals who actually work and saves a few pennies despite being shaken down every day, that it’s time to then pluck those saved pennies that were EARNED! It’s called tax and spend SOCIALISM! And the fact that you’re hero left wing criminals have their eye on this nice big pile of cash should concern you. But then, responsibility seems to be a four letter word for liberals.

        … And If you have some kind of problem with rich people being evil blights on society or something then by all means, tell us who they are! Don’t just copy and paste a list from Dow Jones or People magazine or something since that’s nothing more than being a (jealous) BIGOT! If you have a problem with certain billionaires like Rupert Murdoch then I might agree! But to say all rich people are evil money sucking whores is being the one thing you claim you aren’t – it’s essentially being a RACIST!

    • B. Dog says:

      Dont’t heckel Jeckel, I’m with him on this one.

      • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

        BeeDog–enjoy the word play.

        I know you aren’t that stupid.

    • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

      “And don’t forget that military spending far out shadows almost every other governmental program in existence” – WTF?!? Buwhahahah

      Hint: look up the main entitlement programs then compare to them military.

      I appreciate the good laugh though…thanks.

  3. dcphill says:

    Social Security is OUR money. If we paid into it then we should be eligible for a payout . It is not play money for our elected officials to do with as they please.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Right on!

      If they paid in, the programs should pay out

      If they earn no money, I don’t care if they live in a mansion, they earned the right.

      But, if they have income, then it gets taken into account.

      Welface, medicare food stamps costs us less that the salaries of the scummy 1%ers who are currently filibustering over, ahem, principle.

    • Ken says:

      It’s not your money. It’s the government’s money. That they told you it’s yours and you believed it makes you more the fool. Once you gave it to them, whether by choice, or not, it became theirs and they spent it long ago.

      • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

        It is the governments money.

        Absent the governments money, we would all be on the barter system.

        Government: not something abstract that we can do without but providing basics so necessary that we forget the gravity that keeps us tethered to Earth.

        Reality….. even when tweaked a bit as I do.

        I kid. I tell the truth. Its a mix of things.

        Yea, verily!

  4. Mextli says:

    There is a job opening in Venezuela bobbo.

    • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

      Next Lie–are you suggesting that I collect my SS in Venezuela? But, I am not a Millionaire, so your comment is a bit off center unless you mean something else?

      Anyone see the article on what Chavez’s personal car is/was?

      …………………………………………….
      ……………………………………………

      No doubt he had his official vehicles, entourage, security train and so forth, but to some degree it was…

      ………………………………………………..
      …………………………………………………

      A standard old time VW Bug. Very much in keeping with a socialist egalitarian.

      Amusing how the sheep get in line to baaaa against any person identified as “an enemy” of the USA.

      “The lesser of two Horribles”===ain’t Reality a Bitch?

      • pedro says:

        Don’t give him any ideas.

        • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

          Pedro–you ranted for a good long while about Chavez. I don’t remember any specifics though.

          Was he really any worse than half the asshats in our own Congress?

          Not how cleverly I phrased the question–I have agreed that Chavez was an asshat. But how was he any different from any of the rest other than being not in Americas Pocket? He was in Fidel’s Pocket. He bunched together with a different set of nuts.

          I am curious, what specifically did Chavez do that marked him down for special rebuke?

          • bobbo, Financial Advisor to the Stars says:

            Just a nudge: http://salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/

            Turns out Chavez made Venezuela have TWICE the economic diversity we have in the USA.

            Yes–he did it on the profits from oil. But that expressly places the profits from oil on the people. In America==who gets the profits from oil?

            And thats why so many of the trends that made America great, are all in or headed towards the toilet.

            We are Rich enough to remain on Top of the World, but it turns out we aren’t good enough or smart enough.

            Yea, verily.

          • pedro says:

            Thank for proving you’re just an idiot that follows lines from your masters.

            chavez was just a traitor that played cuba’s proxy. Whatever he gave to the “people” (only those that followed him, if you were against him, though luck) was just crumbs and like pigs in a sty, they rejoice.

            Just watch the list of “presidents” and “leaders” coming to “honor” him. Later on, you can visit him in the mausoleum they built for him

        • pedro says:

          How was he any different? I don’t know. Ask all the Demagogues friends of him like Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, the Bsoton Club…; or the D congressmen friends of him (Obama dixit) that will come for his “celebration”: Rep.(D-NY) Gregory Meeks y ex Rep(D-Mass) William Delahunt

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            You’ve got nothing but general boilerplate. Can’t tell if you might be right or wrong.

            Sad it hurts to think.

          • pedro says:

            Take two aspirins for that headache. I knew there was a reason for your inane rants, your fear to pain.

      • pedro says:

        Sure. and chavez took that VW to Irak to drive around Bagdad with Saddam.

        What a pathetic idiot you are, dumbbo

  5. Yankinwaoz says:

    In other words, means test benefits. Hell no. They paid in, they should benefit. Simple as that.

  6. Baseskizl says:

    That is less than 30,000 per millionaire for you’re a fucking idiot.

  7. Glenn E. says:

    I always understood SS to be a kind of insurance thing. And typically you don’t get pay off from insurance policies, unless you really need them. Not just because you reach some age. So no, I don’t think Millionaires should be getting SS payments. If anything, they ought to keep paying into it.

    When my father took a part time job, after his retirement. The US govt. withheld SS from what little he was making. Making hardly worth the cost of travel, etc, to be doing the job at all. But Millionaires are always making money, from all sorts of interest and dividend bearing investments, etc. So technically, they are earning a living, even in retirement. So the idea that they’re receiving SS payments, without paying into SS any longer, makes no sense. And Millionaires certainly aren’t IN NEED, of Social Security payouts. The way most citizens are in their old age. Paying for the rising cost of food, gas, and medications.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      “I always understood SS to be a kind of insurance thing. And typically you don’t get pay off from insurance policies, unless you really need them.” /// Since SS pays on reaching a certain age, why don’t you think its “not” like insurance? Focusing on the guranteed payment, looks more like a RETIREMENT program to me. Weird Huh?

      Interesting totally f*cked up use of an analogy though.

      Ha, ha.

  8. Uncle Patso says:

    b,

    My comment about a million not being worth that much these days is less about the intentionally divisive question “Should Millionaires Be Able to Collect Social Security?” and more about the ravening monster inflation. Sure, some inflation comes from the increasing cost of energy now that most of the easy-to-mine fossil fuels are used up, but some of it comes from the inability to maintain enough austerity in fiscal policy to keep the value of money up. The Chinese invented paper money centuries and centuries ago and have tried it more than once. Every time, the value of the money slowly eroded until it fit the old saying of not being worth the paper it’s printed on, even though the very cheapest paper was eventually used.

    The prices of most things have passed 10X what it was when I was a kid and is rapidly approaching 15X. So when someone bandies about the word “millionaires” as provocative, I yawn.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Fair enough Uncle but on some level that on faith I take to be relevant you are CONFLATING several issues.

      The law has been followed for 70 years that millionaires and billionaires and the dirt poor who only made one payment into the system get their SS on reaching 65. Given that, asking if Millionaires should get their SS is like asking if children should be allowed to eat: its not an issue.

      But should millionaires be allowed to draw SS IN THE FUTURE? That is a live question restated as: “Should safety net services be means tested or not.”

      My link shows that SS has changed over the years. In substance, SS is a welfare program more like any other than not. The contributions to the plan are more like a general revenue tax than not.

      SUBSTANCE–not BS should control our analysis of such issues. Saying millionaires should continue in the program because a million dollars has been subjected to inflation is a red herring. Its not the issue.

      The up our own asses beatification of the RICH that takes place in the GOUSA is a mass deception beyond belief. You should not do you part to support it.

      RICH = CRIMINAL.

      ftn–a MM isn’t what it used to be I agree. Fun to see code section changes upping first level taxation to 5 MM and more. Yes====lets all pity the poor Millionaire. Do away with Inheritance Taxes and all the rest.

      SO MY QUESTION IS: if a Million is not that much given inflation and all==how much is NOTHING!!!! Does inflation not affect the poor as well. Poor as in minimun wage, food programs, basic health service etc?

      Freaking Idiots!!!

      Ha, ha. I just got up and already I want a beer. I’m not sure, but I think this is how alcoholism starts.

      My link shows the contribution amounts have changed over the years. Its a gov progra

      • Uncle Patso says:

        b,

        I see your point. Inflation is a particular bugaboo of mine, and I was using _this_ discussion to complain about _that_. I see how you could read it as feeling a little sorry for the “poor millionaires.”

        When you say
        ‘But should millionaires be allowed to draw SS IN THE FUTURE? That is a live question restated as: “Should safety net services be means tested or not.”’
        you get into entitlement reform, and that has been one of the top 2 or 3 hardest-to-deal-with issues for the last 40 years. It brings out strongly defensive feelings in pretty much everybody — they all feel threatened at a basic level, even though it has been obvious the whole time that something really has to be done. I’ve always been amazed they were able to get the last couple of fixes to Social Security done, given the “third rail” aspect.

        It’s pretty obvious that any significant reform has to come from the middle of the road, some options from column A and some from column B, etc., but the way the country is getting more and more polarized, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

        It looks like Obama is trying to follow that path, but all he gets for his efforts is snub after snub, with the no-longer-Grand GOP even abandoning their own positions if he so much as says “maybe…” I keep hoping he’ll deliver a major speech on the theme of Motherhood, the Flag and Apple Pie, just to watch the PartyOfNO! try to argue against those things.

        Maybe it’s time for a third party, a party of radical centrists, the American Compromise Party, the party of ♫ “We can work this out.” ♫

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          “It’s pretty obvious that any significant reform has to come from…..” //// I agree….but….I wonder if we would agree on what the nature of those reforms should be? In the link, the contributions rose from 1% of salary to almost 8% over the years. Very significant.

          I AM AGAINST BENEFIT REFORM—because I think its a lie that this country can’t afford the program. Better to have PAID FOR the War in Iraq, Pharmacy Benefit, Multiple Tax Breaks for the Rich and so forth before such cuts/changes are made. Have we been asleep and victims to the CLASS WARFARE ALREADY WON BY THE RICH so that benefit do indeed need to be changed such as “chain linking” (sic) the benefits, raising the age, means testing and such? I don’t know, I’d like to see some honest accounting about that.

          I do believe in being fiscally responsible and matching benefits to revenues.==IE==a whole different approach to government? (sarc/off)

          Inflation is called a tax on the poor.

          At least you feel the knife in your back….now what to do about it?

  9. Guyver says:

    Should Millionaires Be Able to Collect Social Security?

    If said millionaires paid into it then I have no problem with them collecting in on what they’re entitled to. Their current financial situation should not disqualify them from collecting their due entitlement from the government’s ponzi scheme.

  10. The0ne says:

    My Boos, 78 years old. Gets at least 2k+ in SSI, gets pay by the company in 6 figures, runs the facility I’m in so lean it’s not even funny. Where does the profit and revenues go, straight to his pocket as bonuses and raises. Absolutely no one in the facility has gotten a raise in decades or more :) I’m not expected to ever get a raise either hahaha Hell, I can’t even get a caliper to use, that’s how penny pinching this FAR right republican is, and he complains about Obama stuff? LMAO. Gotta love the rich!

    • ramuno says:

      Millionaires should be able to get back what they paid in just like anyone…but they should have to pay that small percentage of income up to at least $25oK and not stop paying at $104K. That would give the fund more than enough $ for the future.

  11. Hmeyers says:

    This is a red herring.

    Because the amount of $$$ that would be saved would be something like $500 million a year — big deal.

    The unwashed masses love a class warfare argument and fall for it every time like a dog that isn’t house broken.

  12. NewformatSux says:

    “You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport, take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system, walk in the door, and we’ve got to give you shelter,” Bloomberg said, speaking on the radio.

  13. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Troll with one of the better responses in a very too long time, yet still inartfully in error, says:
    3/8/2013 at 6:24 pm

    You assume TOO MUCH! You (Bobo) said, I guess this is along the lines that if you have a net worth of ONE MILLION DOLLARS that you are poor …

    WHAT?! You guess that if someone has one million dollars that they are poor or rich or something? /// I’ll bet you have only read this single post, P/M 2 or 3. Read the entire thread. Several regular posters here want to argue means testing should including Millionaires BECAUSE $!MM is not that much–inflation, housing costs, fraudulent loans and so forth. THAT is the context within which I posted.

    I saw no mention that poor people have millions of dollars or even a quarter! /// Me neither, and if they do, they are not poor.

    I did however see mention that there may be a few SMART people who happen to BE “poor” even by Obama’s definitions. /// What Obama definition would that be? Smells like BS. Prove me wrong?

    And some of these “poor people” might not NEED the Social Security that they were FORCED to pay into all their lives. That’s probably because some of these “poor people” may have (unwittingly?) done smart things like SAVE and INVEST – or just not SPEND! /// Another incongruous misuse of inartfully defining what “poor” means. Rather silly.

    So does that mean we should deny money that was FORCED from people who had pay into a program which had PROMISED to pay it back? /// All things are possible when avoiding a default of the entire system. If you read this entire thread, you will read SS is due to all people. Changes to the program according to democratic procedures.

    If so, then call it what it really is, a TAX! /// I did dipshit.

    And when you do that you might also note that everyone’s tax rate will more than DOUBLE! But then, that’s not exactly a very smart political move, now is it? /// I’ll bet you can’t list more than one assumption to reach this result. HINT–don’t confuse your conclusion with an assumption. ((Ha, ha.===I cracked myself up with that one.))

    I suppose anyone in your world of goose stepping communists – /// I’d more rather be a commie than forced to goose step. Gee–I do hate parades.

    er – liberals who actually work and saves a few pennies despite being shaken down every day, that it’s time to then pluck those saved pennies that were EARNED! It’s called tax and spend SOCIALISM! And the fact that you’re hero left wing criminals have their eye on this nice big pile of cash should concern you. But then, responsibility seems to be a four letter word for liberals. /// The record is clear that it is Pukes who want to plunder the nest egg of the great majority of (poor) Americans. Bush repeatedly tried to PRIVATIZE SS. Straight up–that was an attempted theft of money from the poor to the advantage of the RICH. I’m surprised it didn’t work. Ryan still Tryin, rest of the Pukes too. Why you so taken in?

    … And If you have some kind of problem with rich people being evil blights on society or something then by all means, tell us who they are! /// Current favority is Trump. He brags about how many bankruptcies he has had as a mark of his business expertise. I could go on at length.

    Don’t just copy and paste a list from Dow Jones or People magazine or something since that’s nothing more than being a (jealous) BIGOT! If you have a problem with certain billionaires like Rupert Murdoch then I might agree! But to say all rich people are evil money sucking whores //// Context. And not fair as RICH = CRIMINAL has been explained in other posts. Of course, not all RICH are CRIMINAL. But the richer you are, the more likely criminal. Its just a “fact,” whether poetically as I use it, or factually from an straight up legal perspective. And for that, I would give you all of the Large Bank Executives, most recently in the Drug Money Laundering cases. Do you have eyes?

    is being the one thing you claim you aren’t – it’s essentially being a RACIST! /// Stupid.

    Another idiot right wing nutbag, or perhaps just a troll too lazy to prepare himself, VANQUISHED. Sadly…. not even fun.

    Silly Hoomans, loving the boot on their throats, thinking it is freedom.

  14. Why not? I hope it’s a good idea for every1