Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
Well isn't that part of WHAT THE FUCK the ACA (Obamacare) is all about?Well y'know... thanks for that. In some cultures such as Japan, they accept their bound duty to care for elderly family.Two of my kids are earning more than dear old dad. Moving in with them is the last thing I'd impose upon them. Would never ask them for a dime. Altho one still owes me $2,500 from about 5 years ago LOL.BS you raise kids to earn a good income and move in with them...
Not meaning to direct this at you personally, but I find this mindset troubling in light of these two facts:
![]()
![]()
I'd much rather retired folks moved in with their kids and were supported by their kids rather than sticking taxpayers with the cost. I'm planning on that with my parents/in-laws when the time comes.
But this is the U.S. where neither culture nor duty exist. At least not on the level of the Japanese.
The elderly/retirees in this country didn't construct the tax code. Nor should they suffer by it.
To burden children with your presence in order to avoid "sticking taxpayers with the cost" is quite honestly one of the most fucked-up ideas I've ever heard.
Not meaning to direct this at you personally.![]()
Strangers have more obligation to pay for our care when we're elderly than do our kids?
While working, we pay out the ass to Medicare and Social Security. THEN we enroll with Medicaid.
What the fuck is that all about?
I'm a business owner. I see... no I PAY my employee's contributions to Medicare and Social Security. And I pay into the Unemployment Compensation system. And as an EMPLOYEE I pay out the same bullshit!
I've spent the last 40 years paying into SS and Medicare. It's called FICA.
Well, FUCK FICA.
Hey- if you burden your children with yourself then you're nothing better than a white trailer trash bitch.
IF your children burden themselves with YOU... then you are one blessed and lucky motherfucker.
You see the difference?
Look at that first graph again. Everything that an employee + employer + accumulated interest earnings on those FICA deductions over the course of an average person's working life amount to is not enough to pay for the care that the average person is going to consume over their retirement. The rest will have to come from poor young people. Look at the 2nd graph. Rich old people cared for by taxing poor young people.
The system is not stable, it's not self-sustaining. That's the problem and that problem is only getting worse. At some point the costs will be so great that the system will collapse because young people won't sacrifice their own wellbeing with 40% FICA deductions plus income tax in order to pay for the care of the elderly. To compound the problem, medical advances are allowing people to live longer, thus increasing the amount of subsidy that is going to go to the elderly.
If we had an actuarially sound system, where employee + employer deductions + accumulated compound interest resulted in the average person drawing down their contributions and when they died the accounts came near to balancing (contribution = withdrawal) (not individually but as a yearly cohort) then we wouldn't have a problem, but that would mean seriously jacking up FICA taxes. Look at that first graph again.
Remember that SS and Medicare were set up like Ponzi schemes, depending on many contributors to care for 1 recipient. That ratio is nearing 2:1 now and it's going to get worse.