Fixed it for you.

Because half of them are off-duty cops.

Bad man gets sentenced to be hanged. And what he did was so bad that there’s an added twist: he’s to be hanged one day next week, and they won’t tell him which, to make it a surprise. So his lawyer comes to him and says “be happy, they can’t hang you.” “Why not?” “Well, they can’t hang you on Saturday, since that’s…

Worse is when someone overshoots the toolbooth/drive-thru, backs up, and then they’re sitting there in front of you with backup lights lit and you’re just waiting for...

So you can do a neutral slam. But no, you shouldn’t. Really.

And if you insist on doing this, please remember that cars have these spiffy boffo things called Directional Indicators which can be used to unambiguously communicate your intentions while pulling said maneuver.

Nothing about two foot driving? Painful to me is seeing someone going down the highway with their stop lights lit.

I live in a (relatively) high tax state. Much of my tax goes to programs for the less fortunate. So I really don't feel guilty about not giving a lot to charity.

The numbers are the averages for the people that claim the deduction, not everybody in that bracket.

The numbers are the averages for people that claim the deduction, not the entire group.

I think that was a joke, Kristin.

How true. Being honest with oneself is part of Grownup 101.

Except SS never was meant as a “pay this much in, get this much out” system, nor are the benefits directly calculated that way. It’s a wealth transfer from current workers to retirees. You need to look at as a demographic issue: if the number of retirees is increasing faster than the number of workers to support them,…

Yes, everything you say is correct. It’s actually worse than “1 for 1" since the average worker doesn’t pay in taxes anywhere near what the average retiree receives. So for every additional retiree (net of deaths) you need 3-4 new workers. Worked great when almost nobody lived past 70. Now, a demographic nightmare.

A terrific post. It’s a political problem, not a financial one.

Yes, but with SS, you never get to the end of the alphabet since more letters (new workers) are being created (being born, growing up, and coming into the work force).

More precisely, it’s a wealth-transfer scheme. As in transfer from workers to retirees. So long as the burden on the workers is relatively small yet still large enough to fund sufficient benefits for the retirees, everyone’s happy. Once that balance is upset, we’re in trouble. When the trust fund runs dry, they could…

Where does “75% of the benefits you’ve paid into it” come from? What does that sentence even mean?

‘cept for how to ride a bicycle, of course.

An outstanding point, and one that never seems to be understood. And, even if it does push you over, the benefit only comes from the amount over the standard deduction, not the entire amount.