What is the "system" that is supposed to be defended here? The one where money can be exchanged for goods/services in the present, or saved to be exchanged for goods/services in the future? I don't feel sorry for "guy" at all. Sounds like he's not much brighter than the wife if he only had one year's salary saved coming up on retirement age. With such a pathetic amount of savings, it was colossally stupid to put a significant portion of his net worth into a house so close to retirement, especially at a time when prices were out of control by all historical indicators. He had very favorable tax rates during his peak earning years and a strong economic environment throughout. Why should I be upset that some random blue-collar schlub had far more opportunity than the average college grad today but blew it all because he didn't bother to save? The way things are going, even most people with advanced degrees won't ever see six figures in today's dollars. There's no excuse to save that little, particularly when he probably didn't have to start his working life with massive debt like everyone today who wants a decent career but doesn't have rich parents. What is your solution to the "system"? Tax the poorer generation to finance someone who very obviously overextended himself? Or how about I turn your ridiculous assumption, which seems to be that government is the answer, on its head. Imagine that he and his wife hadn't been robbed by social security during his working life. Just sticking that money in a market tracking index fund, he'd have over a million dollars today. Instead, he'll be depending on the government for table scraps.
I do not represent debtors anymore. I am on the other side of the bar these days. I do know several very good debtors' attorneys that will do whatever the law will allow to help him. Email me through the board and I will be happy to provide the best attorneys I know that would be happy to talk to him for free.
For some reason I feel like Glynch is making up half of this at least. Glynch, you seem to be a well off liberal based on your posts on this board. You'll let this man lose his house over $700? Give him the cash and save his home for him. Heck, you validate it's real somehow and I'll even pitch in $50 bucks to save his house. I'm sure others on this board would too. Someone in the equation (either him or you) is not being fully honest.
if you are a machinist in the oil industry, when times are good, $100K is easy without union affiliation.
Unions blow. They can dicatate to a company that an limited skilled man who simply turns a wrench on an assembly line should make $25 an hour in addition to a very nice pension or else threat with a strike. Gee, wonder why GM and other American Industries are outsourcing or going bankrupt. It's nothing more than a shakedown.
I don't know of bigger jerks than to dictate to another man how much money they should make, some of you guys i know from your posts work in six figure jobs that don't require degrees
Wrong again glynch. Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and "Conservatives," and you flippy-floppy "Moderates," YOU defend your stinking system!
I have to disagree with this notion. No matter if you make 50k or 100k or 1mil or w/e, you can still live within reasonable means. You don't have to buy the most expensive house, car, food, etc. available.
So what are you doing to help him glynch? 700 bucks shouldn't take more than a day to get together if you actually care about his situation.
Crazy his treatment is effectively at the whim of the insurance company. Or that lawyers are involved at all. In a sense, there's a process to decide who gets treatment in every country -- not only in America. It just seems the role of the insurance company is greater in the US. No change under 'reform.' But...you lose your earnings, regardless of where you live, and you're hooped. Would he be able to go back to work with surgery? He has no disability insurance, glynch?
What a tough thing for him to have to go through. I am really sorry to hear him having these struggles. I will include him in my prayers. So what does this have to do with being a conservative or a libertarian?
that is truly sad...i'm pretty sure this type of thing goes on all the time...$100K doesn't go very far nowadays...don't get me wrong, you can live comfortably, but a large percentage goes to taxes, 401K/savings, then bills...i thought it said he blew thru his savings for medical bills... Fix the system? good luck with that...the system is flawed, it doesn't matter how much you make...
By your thread title, you imply that this can only happen in America. Surely you don't believe that - do you? That being said, if he lived in another country, could ha have made an equivalent salary in his chosen field over the last several years? Would his wife have received similar benefits for her condition? These are honest, serious questions.
Not going to respond to me Glynch? I am willing to pledge $50 to help save this man's house if you can demonstrate to me (doesn't have to be public on this board) that it is a real need. Let's not just use this as an opportunity for you to pine for a better world, let's really help the man. I'm sure we can get $700 together pretty easily and save this man's house. Then we can make a new thread about "Only in America" except it will be a positive about the kindness and charity that Americans can show each other instead of another one of your sniping contests.
Outside of their use as a convenient straw man for situations like this when you can't form a coherent argument, what do "illegals" have to do with anything? They certainly aren't competing for my job (I worked as a lawyer and now work in finance), nor the jobs of anyone else educated. Let's get back to the point: your "guy" enjoyed wages and a standard of living that "skilled machinists" at any other time, or at the same time but living in any other country, can only dream of. He squandered this opportunity by living beyond his means, and now you presumably support taxing a cohort that never had those opportunities to support him (or if you don't want to redistribute some wealth to him, feel free to tell us what your solution is). His generation voted itself an unsustainable social safety net and didn't vote to tax itself adequately to pay for it. Now later generations will have to pay more for fewer benefits. I realize you think this is some sort of sob story, but I don't see his problems as being any worse than the millions of people who can't even get started in careers due to the economic situation baby boomers created. Why is he more important than a 25 year old machinist who can't find work right now? You make this far, far too easy. Like most leftists, you are more than happy to put your economic illiteracy on full display. It's hilarious that you think you "proved" anything by using 10-17 year time horizons for someone who had 40 years to invest. At the time he would have been getting started, the DOW was trading in the 700-800 range. At the time when a prudent retiree of his age would be shifting to low-risk investments, there were many opportunities to sell off in the 10k-13k range. In fact, all of the social security taxes paid over his first 15 years of work (1970-1985) should have easily averaged a tenfold gain or more. Not having 40 years of his tax returns, it is impossible to "prove" he'd have more than a million today. But it's very easy to see that his (and his wife's) social security taxes could have generated a staggering amount of wealth over his first 30 years of working, and a flat return over the last 10 (ie the same crappy flat return social security provides anyway). Oh, and all that wealth would have been accrued without the unconscionable burden social security places on future generations. "Guy" could have been very wealthy right now. Because the government robbed him over the years, he is dirt poor. Defend the system.
since we're bogged in dogma, and off topic anyways, lets assume the JCD hindsight investment plan was followed, and our unfortunate machinist had the foresight to invest heavily when he was young (rather then later in life, as most people do), avoided the tech wreck, sold off in the Dow 13K range (again -- he has much much better insight on the market then the 'experts' at the time) , and somehow amassed that cool $1m our present value tables show was possible. He then hands a great portion of that $1m to the hospital for surgery. Now what? No social security to help him in his old age, and the nest egg is depleted. How is he better off? This is about the worse case study you could use to defend a privatized SS system. And, to all you youngun's (and old'uns) out there.....REVIEW YOUR DISABILITY INSURANCE!!! As (or more) important then life insurance IMO. This guy went from $100K/y to $35K/y and is about to be cut off -- because of injury. Hopefully he has a company pension and SS to support him in his golden yrs -- but he's in a real bind here -- and would be regardless of where he lived or which way he votes. (though the crunch to his pocket book and access to care seems to have been exasperated by the US med system). Those of you saying he should be thankful for making so much before his injury (as if only degreed professionals are worthy of high earnings??), how has that helped him if he's broke, and broken with, it seems little chance of getting the surgery he needs to regain a semblance of health? Sad.
There were many, many opportunities to sell off at 10K+ over the past decade, including right now, in the middle of a terrible economy. No hindsight or especially fortuitous market timing is required to buy and hold. You're pretending like it would have taken great talent and luck to beat social security's return over the past 40 years, when really it's almost impossible not to. Where is all this talk of "investing heavily" while young? All it would have required is the social security money that the govt stole from him and he had no access to anyway. His available income would not have changed one bit. I didn't realize that basic principles of financial literacy like investing early so the returns have longer to accrue were considered "dogma." It's telling that the best you can come up with to justify government theft on a massive scale is "but..but...but what if he needs a MILLION DOLLAR SURGERY??!?" as if medicare/social security could even remotely finance something like that for everyone. If million dollar surgeries are now a likely outcome for the elderly, I'd love to hear how current government programs will pay for them. The fact is, "guy" could be ballin' right now but because the government stole most of what he could have invested and he mismanaged the rest, he's about to be on the streets living off of whatever pittance the government throws his way. A great outcome if you're a leftist looking to shore up the voter roles by making more people dependent on government, but a terrible one if you want a prosperous country.
