Net Worth at age 55

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

How much do you anticipate your net worth will be by age 55?

  • Less than 2 million

    Votes: 23 7.5%
  • 2-4 million

    Votes: 69 22.4%
  • 4-6 million

    Votes: 83 26.9%
  • 6-8 million

    Votes: 58 18.8%
  • 8-10 million

    Votes: 23 7.5%
  • More than 10 million

    Votes: 52 16.9%

  • Total voters
    308
In the 1980s I drove a POS Dodge Omni that broke down all the time. In the 1990s, I was carrying quarters everywhere and needed to know the locations of all the nearby pay phones in case my pager went off. My life is better than it’s ever been.
I agree that car quality has improved and that cell phones are a game changer as far as communication. In fact, someone famously pointed out that, if cell phones were around, almost every episode of Seinfeld would have been null and void because someone would have just "fixed" the misunderstanding with a quick text.
But the question is really surrounding is inflation a problem or is it not
Does the existence of better quality cars and cell phones really address that issue?

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But few people ever work for purely or even majority "self actualization" reasons.

Maybe? It could be highly age specific too. Maybe 50% of workers age 65-70 are happy working for the high wages they tend to command and only 10% >70 are? I only have anecdotes on this.

And old people are less healthy and less fit than they've ever been.

Are they?

"The health status of older Americans has improved over the past several decades. Older adults today have greater longevity and less chronic disability than did those of previous generations."


I think most people who are working into their late 60s or longer are either doing so out of necessity, or workaholism / mental illness.

I agree with mental illness, at least wrt my elderly anesthesiologist coworkers. One guy is well into his 70s but still picks up extra call. Not for me.

I just don't share the doomerism. My previous posts go into my skepticism of the national debt crisis.

Previous post on national debt "crisis"
Post in: 'Net Worth at age 55' Net Worth at age 55
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree that car quality has improved and that cell phones are a game changer as far as communication. In fact, someone famously pointed out that, if cell phones were around, almost every episode of Seinfeld would have been null and void because someone would have just "fixed" the misunderstanding with a quick text.
But the question is really surrounding is inflation a problem or is it not
Does the existence of better quality cars and cell phones really address that issue?


I didn’t express it very well but my point is that in some ways, poor people now live better than middle class people did 30-40 years ago. But our frame of reference has changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The IRS wants to hire 87,000 new agents to better enforce their policies, which they have apparently walked back since they had such push back.

Giving money and enforcement power to the IRS is one of the best (if not THE best) tools for enforcing laws and reducing the national debt. Every dollar going to the IRS makes $5-$9 in taxes collected from tax cheats.

I will die on this hill.


The "pushback" is entirely from wealthy people who don't want to pay their fair share (or people who don't really know about what the IRS does).

The CDC has been under constant fire for their decisions related to COVID, as the statements by the "conspiracy theorists" have mostly been found to be true.

Here we go...

Department of Education is generally just a mess for a huge variety of reasons.

We probably ideologically disagree here on what the purpose of the Department of Education should be. Betsy Devos yay or nay?

I'll cite my previous post on government skepticism here:
Post in: 'Net Worth at age 55' Net Worth at age 55
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
In the 1980s I drove a POS Dodge Omni that broke down all the time. In the 1990s, I was carrying quarters everywhere and needed to know the locations of all the nearby pay phones in case my pager went off. My life is better than it’s ever been.
And even poor families have a refrigerator!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
And even poor families have a refrigerator!

They might but its probably not being used. They use uber eats

Whatever happened to pizza pickups wanting a tip now... i get the delivery tips but damn tip for just pick up? Am i a cheapo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They might but its probably not being used. They use uber eats

Whatever happened to pizza pickups wanting a tip now... i get the delivery tips but damn tip for just pick up? Am i a cheapo?
No, I NEVER tip for that crap unless it's some sort of small mom and pop local place and I'm feeling generous. Otherwise, never. Heard someone say "I choose 'custom tip' then type in 0.00 and make eye contact with the employee while I hit submit."
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
I didn’t express it very well but my point is that in some ways, poor people now live better than middle class people did 30-40 years ago. But our frame of reference has changed.
No doubt about that. I agree. When the ones on government assistance have $200 Jordans and an iPhone in their pocket (and frequently weigh 400lbs), the lower income people are clearly not hurting for some luxuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
They might but its probably not being used. They use uber eats

Whatever happened to pizza pickups wanting a tip now... i get the delivery tips but damn tip for just pick up? Am i a cheapo?
I am too cheap to use uber eats. I literally have never used it. I was very low income as a young married person and we never splurged for luxuries. I cannot justify in my mind to use an expensive service to bring me fast food that I can go and get myself. Plus, they are likely sampling your food on their way over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Giving money and enforcement power to the IRS is one of the best (if not THE best) tools for enforcing laws and reducing the national debt. Every dollar going to the IRS makes $5-$9 in taxes collected from tax cheats.

I will die on this hill.


The "pushback" is entirely from wealthy people who don't want to pay their fair share (or people who don't really know about what the IRS does).



Here we go...



We probably ideologically disagree here on what the purpose of the Department of Education should be. Betsy Devos yay or nay?

I'll cite my previous post on government skepticism here:
Post in: 'Net Worth at age 55' Net Worth at age 55
I understand. We likely have a fundamentally different philosophy on many things in life. And, that is okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They might but its probably not being used. They use uber eats

Whatever happened to pizza pickups wanting a tip now... i get the delivery tips but damn tip for just pick up? Am i a cheapo?

No.

I never tip on food I'm picking up. I'm going through the trouble of getting it. Why do they deserve a tip for packaging the food?
 
No.

I never tip on food I'm picking up. I'm going through the trouble of getting it. Why do they deserve a tip for packaging the food?
Because they get a crap wage and the owners would rather the customer subsidize the staff than pay them a decent wage.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Because they get a crap wage and the owners would rather the customer subsidize the staff than pay them a decent wage.

That's a myth. In any state, if the total hourly wage and tips do not equal the minimum wage (federal), the employer has to make up the difference.

This never comes up because tipped workers easily exceed this.

Regardless, in CA, the minimum wage is very high. No need to tip on food I'm picking up myself. I'll still tip at a sit down restaurant because of the social norms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That's a myth. In any state, if the total hourly wage and tips do not equal the minimum wage (federal), the employer has to make up the difference.

This never comes up because tipped workers easily exceed this.

Regardless, in CA, the minimum wage is very high. No need to tip on food I'm picking up myself. I'll still tip at a sit down restaurant because of the social norms.
Are you saying the minimum wage isn’t a ‘crap wage’?

Also, the tip isn’t a sneaky way to get the customers to pay the staff salaries. Ultimately, the customers always pay. Tipping lets menu prices remain falsely low. A restaurant that raises prices but removes tipping will appear extra expensive vs its competitors even if you pay the same price in the end, but they’ll lose business.

Tipping also saves the restaurant money by creating a tax-free portion of the bill. I don’t know, but payroll taxes are probably also avoided with tip-based employee incomes. Cash tips definitely go unreported on the recipient’s taxes. Seems like a lot of scams depend on the tipping system.

I don’t like tipping because jerks get subsidized service from decent tippers. If I had my way they would just charge everyone the same and remove the space for a tip from the receipt, but that will never happen without a new law, and that will never happen because special interests trump the greater good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are you saying the minimum wage isn’t a ‘crap wage’?

Also, the tip isn’t a sneaky way to get the customers to pay the staff salaries. Ultimately, the customers always pay. Tipping lets menu prices remain falsely low. A restaurant that raises prices but removes tipping will appear extra expensive vs its competitors even if you pay the same price in the end, do they’ll lose business.

Tipping also saves the restaurant money by creating a tax-free portion of the bill. I don’t know, but payroll taxes are probably also avoided with tip-based employee incomes. Cash tips definitely go unreported on the recipient’s taxes. Seems like a lot of scams depend on the tipping system.

I don’t like tipping because jerks get subsidized service from decent tippers. If I had my way they would just charge everyone the same and remove the space for a tip from the receipt, but that will never happen without law, and that will never happen because special interests trump the greater good.

Federal minimum wage is crap.

Different states have different minimum wages. CA minimum wage is high.

Let's be honest, most servers like the concept of tipping because they generally will make well above minimum wage. If it's cash based, I'm sure servers like it even better.

You think your typical server wants a higher hourly wage with the likely loss of tipping? They don't. They like the concept of tipping because bringing out a $90 steak is the same amount of effort as bringing out a $20 burger but 4x as much money in their pocket.

Regardless, tipping for a sit down meal is different than asking for a tip on a take out meal. I generally don't tip on a take out meal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I tip for everything. The only time I don't tip is when I go for a self service check out or if there is not a screen for tipping.

I have been blessed with making many times over what I have ever imagined. Spending an extra 2-3k/yr on tipping means little to my bottom line but makes someone's life easier. Glad to help someone making 1/50th of what I make life a little easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
In the 1980s I drove a POS Dodge Omni that broke down all the time. In the 1990s, I was carrying quarters everywhere and needed to know the locations of all the nearby pay phones in case my pager went off. My life is better than it’s ever been.
Most new grads these days never seen a real hospital pager. Maybe some hospitals still use them? I just have vocera or WiFi hospital phones or cell phones
 
Giving money and enforcement power to the IRS is one of the best (if not THE best) tools for enforcing laws and reducing the national debt. Every dollar going to the IRS makes $5-$9 in taxes collected from tax cheats.

I will die on this hill.


The "pushback" is entirely from wealthy people who don't want to pay their fair share (or people who don't really know about what the IRS does).



Here we go...



We probably ideologically disagree here on what the purpose of the Department of Education should be. Betsy Devos yay or nay?

I'll cite my previous post on government skepticism here:
Post in: 'Net Worth at age 55' Net Worth at age 55
Cbo is incorrect many times

Look at the cbo estimate with Obamacare 10 year cost estimate. Around 700-900 million.
Guess what the real cost is? 1.7 trillion was the real cost in healthcare subsidies. It’s right on the cbo website in 2023/2024.

Everything is wrong with the cbo. But no one gets fired.

So spending 80 billion in irs agents will likely be like spending 160 billion in irs agents. Their return on investments won’t be $5-9 With more companies devising more schemes. Their ROI may be negative in 10
Years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cbo is incorrect many times

Look at the cbo estimate with Obamacare 10 year cost estimate. Around 700-900 million.
Guess what the real cost is? 1.7 trillion was the real cost in healthcare subsidies. It’s right on the cbo website in 2023/2024.

Everything is wrong with the cbo. But no one gets fired.

So spending 80 billion in irs agents will likely be like spending 160 billion in irs agents. Their return on investments won’t be $5-9 With more companies devising more schemes. Their ROI may be negative in 10
Years.

Source???

Edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-forecasting-the-last-big-health-care-bill/

"a review of the CBO's Obamacare prediction does not suggest a partisan bias or an unreasonably optimistic or pessimistic view of the measure: The CBO's forecasts overstated both the costs and the benefits of the Democratic changes, as the measure appears likely to have a lower price tag than CBO anticipated but has also insured fewer people than proponents hoped, based on the agency's assessment."

"Last year, only 21 million Americans were supposed to be uninsured, according to CBO's initial projections. The actual figure appears to be more like 27 million."

"That figure is partially a result of the fact that the CBO could not have anticipated that the Supreme Court would make the expansion of Medicaid optional for states under Obamacare. Many Republican officials chose not to expand the program in their states, resulting in fewer people receiving coverage than initially envisioned."

The CBO is a reliably nonpartisan organization that routinely revises estimates as new information comes in. Maybe you have a different source telling you differently?

Look at the graph on the Washington Post article. You can see how their predictions were revised over time and were never 700-900 million.

Edit 2: What CBO got right - and wrong - on Obamacare

"However, the agency was much closer to the mark on Obamacare's overall impact on coverage. In its original 2010 estimate, CBO thought the insured rate for non-elderly adults would rise to 92% in 2016. It tempered that view somewhat in 2013, after the Supreme Court ruled that expanding Medicaid was optional for states. The revised forecast was that 89% would have coverage in 2016."

Edit 3: Fact Check: Spicer’s Pre-emptive Attack on the Nonpartisan C.B.O. (Published 2017)

Criticism of the CBO arose from Republicans when they were trying to repeal the ACA... Specifically Sean Spicer? I vaguely remember that guy, Dancing with the Stars right?

Edit 4 How Has CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Changed Over Time?

CBO explaining their own changes.
 
Last edited:
Source???

Edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-forecasting-the-last-big-health-care-bill/

"a review of the CBO's Obamacare prediction does not suggest a partisan bias or an unreasonably optimistic or pessimistic view of the measure: The CBO's forecasts overstated both the costs and the benefits of the Democratic changes, as the measure appears likely to have a lower price tag than CBO anticipated but has also insured fewer people than proponents hoped, based on the agency's assessment."

"Last year, only 21 million Americans were supposed to be uninsured, according to CBO's initial projections. The actual figure appears to be more like 27 million."

"That figure is partially a result of the fact that the CBO could not have anticipated that the Supreme Court would make the expansion of Medicaid optional for states under Obamacare. Many Republican officials chose not to expand the program in their states, resulting in fewer people receiving coverage than initially envisioned."

The CBO is a reliably nonpartisan organization that routinely revises estimates as new information comes in. Maybe you have a different source telling you differently?

Look at the graph on the Washington Post article. You can see how their predictions were revised over time and were never 700-900 million.

Edit 2: What CBO got right - and wrong - on Obamacare

"However, the agency was much closer to the mark on Obamacare's overall impact on coverage. In its original 2010 estimate, CBO thought the insured rate for non-elderly adults would rise to 92% in 2016. It tempered that view somewhat in 2013, after the Supreme Court ruled that expanding Medicaid was optional for states. The revised forecast was that 89% would have coverage in 2016."

Edit 3: Fact Check: Spicer’s Pre-emptive Attack on the Nonpartisan C.B.O. (Published 2017)

Criticism of the CBO arose from Republicans when they were trying to repeal the ACA... Specifically Sean Spicer? I vaguely remember that guy, Dancing with the Stars right?

Edit 4 How Has CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Changed Over Time?

CBO explaining their own changes.
September 28, 2023
In 2023, federal subsidies for health insurance are estimated to be $1.8 trillion, or 7.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In CBO and JCT’s projections, those net subsidies reach $3.3 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP, in 2033

Cbo website. That’s just the subsidies.

The govt is all about moving the goal post.
 
September 28, 2023
In 2023, federal subsidies for health insurance are estimated to be $1.8 trillion, or 7.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In CBO and JCT’s projections, those net subsidies reach $3.3 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP, in 2033

Cbo website. That’s just the subsidies.

The govt is all about moving the goal post.

Yes... That is the healthcare subsidies estimate. Where did the $700-900 million number come from??? Maybe you're conflating "net budgetary impact" from 2010 with "total healthcare subsidies" today? Or haven't seen how these estimates change over time with new information?

Can you point to a source that shows the CBO made an estimate that "federal subsidies for health insurance" were not predicted to be around $1.8 trillion in 2023? A source showing they were way off? Please link your sources as well.

Show me when the goalpost moved on a specific metric that the CBO should have predicted better. That is your claim.
 
Last edited:
That's a myth. In any state, if the total hourly wage and tips do not equal the minimum wage (federal), the employer has to make up the difference.

This never comes up because tipped workers easily exceed this.

Regardless, in CA, the minimum wage is very high. No need to tip on food I'm picking up myself. I'll still tip at a sit down restaurant because of the social norms.
I was sort of being tongue in cheek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes... That is the healthcare subsidies estimate. Where did the $700-900 million number come from??? Maybe you're conflating "net budgetary impact" from 2010 with "total healthcare subsidies" today? Or haven't seen how these estimates change over time with new information?

Can you point to a source that shows the CBO made an estimate that "federal subsidies for health insurance" were not predicted to be around $1.8 trillion in 2023? A source showing they were way off? Please link your sources as well.

Show me when the goalpost moved on a specific metric that the CBO should have predicted better. That is your claim.
Dude. Just google it. Tired of convincing people when the data and facts are right there. Are people that lazy to look up?

Cost Estimate for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as Proposed on November 18 (November 2009) (900 million estimate)


2023 article. 1.7 trillion.

 
Dude. Just google it. Tired of convincing people when the data and facts are right there. Are people that lazy to look up?

Cost Estimate for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as Proposed on November 18 (November 2009) (900 million estimate)


2023 article. 1.7 trillion.


This doesn't at all prove your claim.

You MUST be trolling me. Just take a minute to read what you've linked.

The first link is (as I suspected) net budgetary impact accounting for costs and importantly additional revenue. It is from 2010-2019. Not 2023. Keep in mind, the ACA didn't actually start enrollment until 2013.

The second link is healthcare subsidies, which does not take into account any cost savings associated with the ACA.

So what you've done is tried to claim that net budgetary impact should be the same as total healthcare subsidies as well as mixed up the years under consideration.

Just link me the breitbart or infowars article you learned this from, maybe they can bail you out with a better citation. Once again, your claim is that the CBO is pumping out bogus data.

Edit: The first link is also prior to SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate which resulted in various estimates changing. See sources I linked above.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't at all prove your claim.

You MUST be trolling me. Just take a minute to read what you've linked.

The first link is (as I suspected) net budgetary impact accounting for costs and importantly additional revenue. It is from 2010-2019. Not 2023. Keep in mind, the ACA didn't actually start enrollment until 2013.

The second link is healthcare subsidies, which does not take into account any cost savings associated with the ACA.

So what you've done is tried to claim that net budgetary impact should be the same as total healthcare subsidies as well as mixed up the years under consideration.

Just link me the breitbart or infowars article you learned this from, maybe they can bail you out with a better citation. Once again, your claim is that the CBO is pumping out bogus data.

Edit: The first link is also prior to SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate which resulted in various estimates changing. See sources I linked above.
Again this all has to deal with the irs agents being hired over 9-10 years and irs and cbo “projecting a net revenue of $5-9 extra gain “.

Same thing with the Aca projections back in 2009

U just don’t get it. You are just moving the goal post The cbo projected cost savings with tax revenue with taxes paid by people who won’t insure themselves as well. Those
Taxes were really never really ever gonna to be collected.

And it’s administration executive decisions. Like Biden determining how generous subsidies will be.

The premium subsidized tax credits especially those making under 250% of poverty varies by executive decisions. No cbo projection can predict it. So Biden is very generous with subsidies just like he is at giving away money directing dept of education to forgive student loan. Cbo cannot predict iT

govt is the master mind of manipulating data. Don’t forget that.

Let me ask u a very simple question. And yes. It’s a trick question

Who is the most productive surgeon in the veterans administration hospital metrics wise?

A surgeon who does 15 carpal tunnels in a 7.5 hr period?

Or a surgeon who does 3 carpal tunnel in a 8.25 hr period?

These are where ur metrics can blow u out of the water? Guess which surgeon gets rewarded metric wise in the govt?

The surgeon who utilizes 100% or in this case 105% their or block time.

That my friend is how to play the data game.
 
U just don’t get it

You're right, I don't.

I think it's fine to trust most American government institutions most of the time. Obviously, there are notable exceptions. The explicitly nonpartisan CBO reliably puts out the best forecasts that our Congressmen rely upon to make informed decisions. They are, for the most part, lifetime civil servants who work for both R and D administrations. Actuaries and accountants, not politicians. I do acknowledge that their job isn't apolitical though.

Skepticism of government is fine, but being skeptical to the point that you reject every CBO report if it doesn't agree with your priors is wrong. You have no reason to believe the CBO report on the IRS is wrong, or at least you haven't provided one. Skepticism of the government without justification makes you no different from someone who believes the government faked the moon landing.
 
Last edited:
You're right, I don't.

I think it's fine to trust most American government institutions most of the time. Obviously, there are notable exceptions. The explicitly nonpartisan CBO reliably puts out the best forecasts that our Congressmen rely upon to make informed decisions. They are, for the most part, lifetime civil servants who work for both R and D administrations. Actuaries and accountants, not politicians. I do acknowledge that their job isn't apolitical though.

Skepticism of government is fine, but being skeptical to the point that you reject every CBO report if it doesn't agree with your priors is wrong. You have no reason to believe the CBO report on the IRS is wrong, or at least you haven't provided one. Skepticism of the government without justification makes you no different from someone who believes the government faked the moon landing.

If you can honestly take the time to read the two links you provided and conclude that the CBO is putting out bogus data from it, I don't know how to help you Doctor.
I know how the cbo works. It’s like an OR scheduling committee puts in Or time slots with historical data how long it takes a surgeon to booked based on DATA

Guess what homie? If x surgeon takes 5 hrs routinely for or case. Get 2-3 cases are shorten due to various factors. That lowers their historian Or time

The cbo is wrong many times and they keep back tracking to adjust data and blame govt legislation and other impacts. Those are facts. Even look at the cbo budget projections the last 30 years. Read it. I read this stuff. I read the cbo. There are so many disclaimers. And they than pat themselves in the back that they are within 2-3% of their projections AFTER accounting for legislations they have no control of.


This article refutes cbo inaccurate Obamacare projections

This is cbo article. Read it. It refutes their own projections mistakes. It’s so funny. Than says after adjusting for all the fluffy stuff like legislation and Supreme Court decisions that the projections is mostly correct.


You my friend sound like. Erza Klein (smart guy, Met him couple of times). He says so many stuff. Mostly true but tons of hidden agenda and mistrust. He’s almost as bad as Fox News. Dude has so many ideological basis. I can see things a mile away. And no. I don’t vote straight republicans I believe in death penalty. I believe in cruel punishment to thrwat future offenses like caning. I don’t believe in guns. I think they should repeal it. I also think they should bring back prohibition. I am not the normal republican. I also believe in the flat tax. If u think I am the ultra conservative republican Fox News watching poster. I hate Fox News (I also
Hate msnbc. ). That’s why u make fun of being fair and balance. I barely watch tv especially the news
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I know how the cbo works. It’s like an OR scheduling committee puts in Or time slots with historical data how long it takes a surgeon to booked based on DATA

Guess what homie? If x surgeon takes 5 hrs routinely for or case. Get 2-3 cases are shorten due to various factors. That lowers their historian Or time

The cbo is wrong many times and they keep back tracking to adjust data and blame govt legislation and other impacts. Those are facts. Even look at the cbo budget projections the last 30 years. Read it. I read this stuff. I read the cbo. There are so many disclaimers. And they than pat themselves in the back that they are within 2-3% of their projections AFTER accounting for legislations they have no control of.


This article refutes cbo inaccurate Obamacare projections

This is cbo article. Read it. It refutes their own projections mistakes. It’s so funny. Than says after adjusting for all the fluffy stuff like legislation and Supreme Court decisions that the projections is mostly correct.


You my friend sound like. Erza Klein (smart guy, Met him couple of times). He says so many stuff. Mostly true but tons of hidden agenda and mistrust. He’s almost as bad as Fox News. Dude has so many ideological basis. I can see things a mile away. And no. I don’t vote straight republicans I believe in death penalty. I believe in cruel punishment to thrwat future offenses like caning. I don’t believe in guns. I think they should repeal it. I also think they should bring back prohibition. I am not the normal republican. I also believe in the flat tax. If u think I am the ultra conservative republican Fox News watching poster. I hate Fox News (I also
Hate msnbc. ). That’s why u make fun of being fair and balance. I barely watch tv especially the news

Finally. You come up with sources critical of the CBO.

Let's look at the first one together. I read it and here is the conclusion:

"Projecting the economic impact of major pieces of legislation is a difficult task with substantial amounts of uncertainty. To its credit, CBO acknowledges this, even as there is a tendency elsewhere to treat CBO estimates as gospel. Since CBO estimates will once again play a prominent role in the coming ACA repeal and replace debate, it is important to appreciate the large degree of uncertainty and to understand CBO’s key mistakes estimating the ACA. In particular, it would be good to know the steps CBO has taken to correct for its two biggest mistakes—overestimating the effect of the individual mandate and failing to anticipate how states would respond to the elevated reimbursement rate for the Medicaid expansion population. CBO should then inform lawmakers how it has adjusted its model and assumptions. And irrespective of CBO’s methodological changes, lawmakers should proceed with full awareness of the limits of CBO’s projection capability."

Sounds totally reasonable and like an organization doing it's best to assess a complicated problem while revising it's forecast as new information comes in. Great! This is hard stuff, but it's the best and most reliable predictions we have available. You don't need to be critical of them when they issue a disclaimer. One thing I will note about this article, frequently the author will say things like this: "CBO’s model has consistently and significantly overestimated the effect of the individual mandate in inducing people to enroll in the exchanges." But crucially avoids telling the reader what the "consistent" and "significant" overestimation was. Was it 5%? 50%? To his credit, he does say that their initial estimation of people enrolled in the expansion was 20M when ultimately only 10M enrolled. The compounding factor of lower than expected GDP is interesting and something I was unaware of.

Great article. Especially good graph here that is also in my previous links. The 2010 estimate for ACA Medicaid expansion spending in 2016 was off by $15-20 billion. For an estimate 6 years out, for something as monumental as the ACA was, I think that's pretty impressive actuarial work. I understand why you want to be critical of that, but it is a pretty impressive achievement to me.


Adjusted-CBO-Medicaid-Cost-Projections-option-2.jpg
 
Finally. You come up with sources critical of the CBO.

Let's look at the first one together. I read it and here is the conclusion:

"Projecting the economic impact of major pieces of legislation is a difficult task with substantial amounts of uncertainty. To its credit, CBO acknowledges this, even as there is a tendency elsewhere to treat CBO estimates as gospel. Since CBO estimates will once again play a prominent role in the coming ACA repeal and replace debate, it is important to appreciate the large degree of uncertainty and to understand CBO’s key mistakes estimating the ACA. In particular, it would be good to know the steps CBO has taken to correct for its two biggest mistakes—overestimating the effect of the individual mandate and failing to anticipate how states would respond to the elevated reimbursement rate for the Medicaid expansion population. CBO should then inform lawmakers how it has adjusted its model and assumptions. And irrespective of CBO’s methodological changes, lawmakers should proceed with full awareness of the limits of CBO’s projection capability."

Sounds totally reasonable and like an organization doing it's best to assess a complicated problem while revising it's forecast as new information comes in. Great! This is hard stuff, but it's the best and most reliable predictions we have available. You don't need to be critical of them when they issue a disclaimer. One thing I will note about this article, frequently the author will say things like this: "CBO’s model has consistently and significantly overestimated the effect of the individual mandate in inducing people to enroll in the exchanges." But crucially avoids telling the reader what the "consistent" and "significant" overestimation was. Was it 5%? 50%? To his credit, he does say that their initial estimation of people enrolled in the expansion was 20M when ultimately only 10M enrolled. The compounding factor of lower than expected GDP is interesting and something I was unaware of.

Great article. Especially good graph here that is also in my previous links. The 2010 estimate for ACA Medicaid expansion spending in 2016 was off by $15-20 billion. For an estimate 6 years out, for something as monumental as the ACA was, I think that's pretty impressive actuarial work. I understand why you want to be critical of that, but it is a pretty impressive achievement to me.


View attachment 386752
I'm a simple guy. With simple straight to the point and no BS.

What the CBO states with their disclaimers is the equivalent of a cardiologist evaluating a patient with a symptomatic 0.6cm AS and saying to you "elevated but non prohibitive risk" for elective "low risk" ERCP in dangerous GI doctor who takes 1.5 hrs to do the procedure.

AKA, take it with a grain of salt what they say....

I just throw the cardiologist evaluation out the door and cancel the procedure. I do the same thing with the CBO opinion on matters like IRS agents saving the govt money. Have you ever tried to call the IRS? Did you realize the IRS once took phone calls from customers 6am-2pm eastern standard time. Who the F wakes up at 6am to call the IRS? Those dude/gals did no work for almost 3 hours. It's the simple truth. Why? Because they told my future spouse what they do because she arranged for their transportation to their offices in their car pools when she had a college job.

The IRS is inefficient. And hiring more inefficient staffing isn't gonna to collect more revenue. Just adding more pork to the govt payroll. If you ever worked in any government facility. You will understand the depth of inefficiency
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What the CBO states with their disclaimers is the equivalent of a cardiologist evaluating a patient with a symptomatic 0.6cm AS and saying to you "elevated but non prohibitive risk" for elective "low risk" ERCP in dangerous GI doctor who takes 1.5 hrs to do the procedure.

AKA, take it with a grain of salt what they say....

I just throw the cardiologist evaluation out the door and cancel the procedure. I do the same thing with the CBO opinion on matters like IRS agents saving the govt money.

This is perfect. I couldn't have constructed this analogy better if I tried.

You are taking a problem for which you presumably have expertise (anesthesia for a patient with symptomatic AS) and are extraplolating that expertise onto a problem for which you have little (let's say significantly less than the CBO at least). I wouldn't presume to second guess an organization of hundreds of hardworking Americans on something I haven't studied extensively. I either don't have the cojones or I have too much humility. But you do it effortlessly. You have absolute confidence that the CBO doesn't know what it's talking about.

The IRS is inefficient.

Let's talk about the inefficiency. Following implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act and their improved budget we've seen: improved phone service, more calls answered, faster call response times, expanded hours (which other people want, but not necessarily you), and more taxpayers filing for free. (1) This tells me: we gave them more money, and we're getting better service for it.

hiring more inefficient staffing isn't gonna to collect more revenue

How are you so certain of this??? Was it the ghost of Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand who brought this providence down? I worked at the VA as a resident for a couple months, it wasn't impressive, but I was never left with the jaded impression that it was beyond improvement with more resources.

Here is a question: If the IRS actually was underfunded for the purpose of capturing revenue from high income Americans... how would you know it?

1. IRS delivers strong 2024 tax filing season; expands services for millions of people on phones, in-person and online with expanded funding | Internal Revenue Service.
 
Last edited:
This is perfect. I couldn't have constructed this analogy better if I tried.

You are taking a problem for which you presumably have expertise (anesthesia for a patient with symptomatic AS) and are extraplolating that expertise onto a problem for which you have little (let's say significantly less than the CBO at least). I wouldn't presume to second guess an organization of hundreds of hardworking Americans on something I haven't studied extensively. I either don't have the cajones or I have too much humility. But you do it effortlessly. You have absolute confidence that the CBO doesn't know what it's talking about.



Let's talk about the inefficiency. Following implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act and their improved budget we've seen: improved phone service, more calls answered, faster call response times, expanded hours (which other people want, but not necessarily you), and more taxpayers filing for free. (1) This tells me: we gave them more money, and we're getting better service for it.



How are you so certain of this??? Was it the ghost of Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand who brought this providence down? I worked at the VA as a resident for a couple months, it wasn't impressive, but I was never left with the jaded impression that it was beyond improvement with more resources.

Here is a question: If the IRS actually was underfunded for the purpose of capturing revenue from high income Americans... how would you know it?

1. IRS delivers strong 2024 tax filing season; expands services for millions of people on phones, in-person and online with expanded funding | Internal Revenue Service.
Have you ever worked for the govt as attending. The answer is no.

Working as a Va resident pales in comparison I know chiefs of staff. I how deputies of staff

Chiefs etc.

They are all dumbfounded with the ineffectiveness of the govt

I know irs agents. All the same thoughts. U go in. Do ur work. But the system is way too big to make changes.

Until you have been in the system. And yes. I have been in the federal system my self both non clinical professional and clinical professional You won’t know day to day how bad it is

My friends and families members are very high up again the things they go through with underlings. Even dumb ass crap like peeps complaining about how uncomfortable their home office equipment during zoom meetings. Yes. These are federal employee making 200k complaining about their own home office! And working from home

And you think u have respect for many of these folks? And this isn’t even the VA. This is another branch of the government.

IRS is just another branch of inefficient workers. They go in. Punch the clock. Most won’t go beyond their duty.

Don’t believe all the printout. Have u lived in Washington DC? I have. Have you had day to day with govt? I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And you think u have respect for many of these folks? And this isn’t even the VA. This is another branch of the government.

I have respect for Americans doing a necessary function of government.
Even dumb ass crap like peeps complaining about how uncomfortable their home office equipment during zoom meetings. Yes. These are federal employee making 200k complaining about their own home office! And working from home

People on this forum complain about their jobs making 600k. Complaining about your job is nothing new or unique to government work.

Don’t believe all the printout. Have u lived in Washington DC? I have. Have you had day to day with govt? I have.

Living in DC does not mean you have expertise on the IRS or what an increased budget does for it.
 
Last edited:
I have respect for Americans doing a necessary function of government.

People on this forum complain about their jobs making 600k. Complaining about your job is nothing new or unique to government work.



Living in DC does not mean you have expertise on the IRS or what an increased budget would does for it.
Knowing people at IRS means I know people. And I know a lot of people from the executive to the judicial branch.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Knowing people at IRS means I know people. And I know a lot of people from the executive to the judicial branch.

If the IRS actually was underfunded for the purpose of capturing revenue from high income Americans... how would you know it?

It sounds like you would ask one of your friends, maybe in the executive branch. What if what they told you conflicted with the CBO projection? How would you resolve that? Would you trust your executive branch friend over the CBO?

Do you know anyone who actually works for the CBO? Maybe you could ask them?

I'm done. This was fun but we're monopolizing the post.
 
Last edited:
LOL you're arguing with a guy who proudly brags about being a tax law expert and in the next breath brags about the legality of his annual tax fraud
He’s an expert in everything. No point in even wasting time on that one.
 
LOL you're arguing with a guy who proudly brags about being a tax law expert and in the next breath brags about the legality of his annual tax fraud
I'm very legit. There are much more aggressive people than me. Many business claim negative returns. Even 1099 docs. Most I know are super aggressive. 500K 1099 income, young locums doc paid 50k total taxes on that income. That's 10%. It's not about bragging. It's about educating people.

It's like people "bragging" about student loan forgivensss. 400k loan forgiveness. Touches a nerve on a lot of people. There are shady stuff people do like claim "clinical assistant professor" at non profit while working at for profit place barely affiliated because they have a couple of med students that rotate over. That qualifies for loan forgiveness as well.
 
He’s an expert in everything. No point in even wasting time on that one.
Not expert at everything. I do know a lot but it's a learning process. I was a rookie 20 plus years ago. Made some mistakes. I learn and tweak things over the years. This forum has educated me as well. That's why I post. I don't care if you take my advice or not. I'm just putting it out there to inform people.

Just look at Sevo's (the one who died). My buddy did residency with him. They both spent too much money on cars out of residency. Their advice is don't blow money on cars anymore. And I don't even for the tax deductions. I brought and or leased 7 cars in 7 years for tax reasons. Kinda of stupid to do that now as I gotten older.

Take the advice or don't take the advice. It's out there.
 
Not expert at everything. I do know a lot but it's a learning process. I was a rookie 20 plus years ago. Made some mistakes. I learn and tweak things over the years. This forum has educated me as well. That's why I post. I don't care if you take my advice or not. I'm just putting it out there to inform people.

Just look at Sevo's (the one who died). My buddy did residency with him. They both spent too much money on cars out of residency. Their advice is don't blow money on cars anymore. And I don't even for the tax deductions. I brought and or leased 7 cars in 7 years for tax reasons. Kinda of stupid to do that now as I gotten older.

Take the advice or don't take the advice. It's out there.
Wait what? @sevoflurane died? I thought I just saw a post on here not too long ago. Now I am seeing more Sevos on here. Which one died?? How old? Why? What happened?
 
Almost 50% of those who responded to this poll expect to have a net worth exceeding $6 million by age 55. As long as that net worth isn't tied up in a personal home that's very good. With stocks returning on average 10% many on here can retire by age 55-60 with quite a nest egg.

That's a withdrawal rate of 4% on $6 million or $240,000 per year; alternatively, a more conservative withdrawal rate of 3% is $180,000 per year.

Smaller Withdrawals: Why 3.3% Is The Drawdown Dream​

(20-minute read) As rules of thumb go, this one is simple enough to execute, and could have a visible impact on your retirement​

Christine Benz
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That sent me into a panic till I scrolled down…
that's my fault. sorry. I just text/type away randomly on the phone. but peeps die, you learn from them. Lots of information on these boards. I learn a lot from physicians Facebook forums also (not the crazy Indian VA employed part time/radiology woman doc site that many make fun of who self promotes everything who's married to plastic surgeon doing the George Floyd fake kneeling for 8 minutes having to find a white coat). That site is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
that's my fault. sorry. I just text/type away randomly on the phone. but peeps die, you learn from them. Lots of information on these boards. I learn a lot from physicians Facebook forums also (not the crazy Indian VA employed part time/radiology woman doc site that many make fun of who self promotes everything who's married to plastic surgeon doing the George Floyd fake kneeling for 8 minutes having to find a white coat). That site is a joke.

Haha that site is a joke. Physician community. Never seen such a bunch of whiny losers before
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top