[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

Sale of a personal residence is not business income. It is investment income (the $250/500K exclusion notwithstanding). Only investment income is subject to this tax. I didn’t really word my previous comment very well. The way it’s written is actually wrong. The tax would not apply to the $400,000 in salary. It would apply to the interest income.

Example for a married couple filing a joint return. Wages of $275,000. Interest of $5,000. Taxable gain on the sale of a personal residence of $100,000. (Which would mean it was actually a $600,000 gain.) Total income is $380,000. New tax applies on all investment income of $105,000.

Second example. Same facts except total wages are only $100,000. Total income $205,000. Tax does not apply because it’s under the $250,000 threshold.

Third example. Same facts except total wages are $200,000. Total income of $305,000. Tax applies on the lesser of investment income of $105,000 or total income less the threshold amount. ($305,000 less $250,000 or $55,000) Tax would only apply on the $55,000.

[SK in CV]

Sale of a personal residence is not business income. It is investment income (the $250/500K exclusion notwithstanding). Only investment income is subject to this tax. I didn’t really word my previous comment very well. The way it’s written is actually wrong. The tax would not apply to the $400,000 in salary. It would apply to the interest income.

Example for a married couple filing a joint return. Wages of $275,000. Interest of $5,000. Taxable gain on the sale of a personal residence of $100,000. (Which would mean it was actually a $600,000 gain.) Total income is $380,000. New tax applies on all investment income of $105,000.

Second example. Same facts except total wages are only $100,000. Total income $205,000. Tax does not apply because it’s under the $250,000 threshold.

Third example. Same facts except total wages are $200,000. Total income of $305,000. Tax applies on the lesser of investment income of $105,000 or total income less the threshold amount. ($305,000 less $250,000 or $55,000) Tax would only apply on the $55,000.

[SK in CV]

Sale of a personal residence is not business income. It is investment income (the $250/500K exclusion notwithstanding). Only investment income is subject to this tax. I didn’t really word my previous comment very well. The way it’s written is actually wrong. The tax would not apply to the $400,000 in salary. It would apply to the interest income.

Example for a married couple filing a joint return. Wages of $275,000. Interest of $5,000. Taxable gain on the sale of a personal residence of $100,000. (Which would mean it was actually a $600,000 gain.) Total income is $380,000. New tax applies on all investment income of $105,000.

Second example. Same facts except total wages are only $100,000. Total income $205,000. Tax does not apply because it’s under the $250,000 threshold.

Third example. Same facts except total wages are $200,000. Total income of $305,000. Tax applies on the lesser of investment income of $105,000 or total income less the threshold amount. ($305,000 less $250,000 or $55,000) Tax would only apply on the $55,000.

[SK in CV]

Sale of a personal residence is not business income. It is investment income (the $250/500K exclusion notwithstanding). Only investment income is subject to this tax. I didn’t really word my previous comment very well. The way it’s written is actually wrong. The tax would not apply to the $400,000 in salary. It would apply to the interest income.

Example for a married couple filing a joint return. Wages of $275,000. Interest of $5,000. Taxable gain on the sale of a personal residence of $100,000. (Which would mean it was actually a $600,000 gain.) Total income is $380,000. New tax applies on all investment income of $105,000.

Second example. Same facts except total wages are only $100,000. Total income $205,000. Tax does not apply because it’s under the $250,000 threshold.

Third example. Same facts except total wages are $200,000. Total income of $305,000. Tax applies on the lesser of investment income of $105,000 or total income less the threshold amount. ($305,000 less $250,000 or $55,000) Tax would only apply on the $55,000.

[SK in CV]

Sale of a personal residence is not business income. It is investment income (the $250/500K exclusion notwithstanding). Only investment income is subject to this tax. I didn’t really word my previous comment very well. The way it’s written is actually wrong. The tax would not apply to the $400,000 in salary. It would apply to the interest income.

Example for a married couple filing a joint return. Wages of $275,000. Interest of $5,000. Taxable gain on the sale of a personal residence of $100,000. (Which would mean it was actually a $600,000 gain.) Total income is $380,000. New tax applies on all investment income of $105,000.

Second example. Same facts except total wages are only $100,000. Total income $205,000. Tax does not apply because it’s under the $250,000 threshold.

Third example. Same facts except total wages are $200,000. Total income of $305,000. Tax applies on the lesser of investment income of $105,000 or total income less the threshold amount. ($305,000 less $250,000 or $55,000) Tax would only apply on the $55,000.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Guess I fell for the rhetoric during the campaign promising not increase on taxes if you make under $200k. Very short sighted of me to think of this as salary only. Silly me.

[/quote]

I don’t understand this. If you make under $200K it doesn’t apply. Which rhetoric did you fall for?

[Author]

Posts