Jump to content

davel501

Supporting Team IV
  • Posts

    1,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by davel501

  1. Here's some fun math. 

     

    It looks like the monthly social security income is $4,873/MO or, $58,476/yr. Using the 4% rule for retirement https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/four-percent-rule-retirement/ you'd need $1,461,900 in your social security account at full retirement age. 

     

    If you max out social security withholding you contribute $10,453.20 in 2024. $10,453.20 * 52 working years = $543,566.40. It's worse than that though because that math assumes a return equal to inflation but there's not. 

     

    There's just no way social security works without a growing population and lots of people dying just before they can collect. 

  2. On 7/5/2024 at 8:56 PM, JTHunter said:

    Dave - current retirees are being paid out of the taxes taken from currently employed people.  They are NOT being paid from what they were taxed years before.  That money is long gone.  Part of the reason SS is hurting is that far too many people that have NEVER paid into SS are getting benefits they don't deserve.

     

    Thinking you didn't catch my Madoff reference or Flynn calling it a ponzi scheme. 

     

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff

     

  3. On 7/4/2024 at 11:57 AM, Flynn said:

     

    That was how it was sold and how some claim it works, but in reality, it was always and still is a giant Ponzi scheme, there is no return on the money you put in, it's fully dependent on new contributions to pay out...

     

    With the computer revolution and explosion of the tech and manufacturing industry since the 80s, SS should be overflowing with money, but like everything the government touches it's a train wreck instead...

     

    Yeah, don't look too hard at how they generate those returns. Madoff got a show trial and prison time for doing the same thing. 

  4. On 7/3/2024 at 9:09 PM, Euler said:

    On July 2, Foxx filed a motion to request a joint status meeting to discuss the impact of the Rahimi decision on this case. The plaintiffs contend that Rahimi does not affect this case. The defendants contend that Rahimi's loosening of the standards by which text, history, and tradition are applied makes it relevant.

     

    I figured they'd lean into Rahimi. Riding public transportation does not make one dangerous. That should really be the headline here. Foxx says people are dangerous and should be disarmed because they use public transportation.

     

    Rahimi did mention that concealed carry was banned in certain places but those were fixed places, not moving gun free zones that are impossible to secure.

  5. On 7/2/2024 at 12:14 PM, Euler said:


    CA7 said in its ruling that Friedman was compatible with Bruen. I believe McGlynn intends to bury the CA7 ruling under the weight of Bruen. Let's not forget that the denial of the petition at the Supreme Court was a majority opinion written by Thomas that called the CA7 ruling "ridiculous." The only dissent from that opinion was Alito, who would have granted the petition.

    In a way, the SC denial still gives McGlynn a chance to bury CA7 under Bruen himself without getting in his way at all. Unfortunately, it also allows CA7 to drag its heels on the eventual appeal, as well, but that was probably going to happen, anyway.

     

    What precedent is McGlynn bound by now that SCOTUS laid waste to the CA7's ruling? Still the CA7 ruling because SCOTUS didn't GVR?

  6. On 7/2/2024 at 10:51 AM, IH8IL said:

    Its been said from the beginning. IL is going to try and stall this out as long as they can. I had my hopes up but deep down knew this was how it was going to go down.

     

    This case has actually been moving along quite quickly almost as though they want to make it an election year issue. It may still be as Newsome and Pritzker are likely making their "pick me" pitches to take over for Biden.

  7. On 7/2/2024 at 10:23 AM, yurimodin said:

    wish we had a tag line of what each of these cases were

     

    I bolded 

    and

    Since they have been getting a lot of attention. The rest you'd have to go look but the sheer volume is what impressed me. Well, that and the giant slap in the face of the 7th circuit. Man, that was good stuff. I wonder if McGlynn cites that in his ruling.

  8. On 7/1/2024 at 10:27 PM, soundguy said:


    It’s very possible that if everyone paid in on 100% of their salary, Social Security could become a real pension and include healthcare from cradle to grave. 
     

    We have always been afraid of what the well to do would think about contributing more. 
     

    Cheers,

    Tim

     

    Social security tries to keep pace with inflation while the S&P 500 beats inflation by 6.5% on average every year. Social security seeks only to maintain the current value of money placed into the trust while simultaneously paying out to people that never paid in through various means and hoping enough people that paid in die off to make the math all work. It's a pyramid scheme and the boomers are flipping the pyramid by living longer after having less children. Even if everyone paid in more, you'd never overcome the math of it all without destroying the economy.

  9. Big morning! The fireworks are starting early this week! Order List (07/02/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

     

    "And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit’s application of its definition is nonsensical."

     

    Quote

    23-374 GARLAND, ATTY GEN. V. RANGE, BRYAN D. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-376 UNITED STATES V. DANIELS, PATRICK D. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-455 UNITED STATES V. PEREZ-GALLAN, LITSSON A. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-683 VINCENT, MELYNDA V. GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United 3 States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-910 ANTONYUK, IVAN, ET AL. V. JAMES, STEVEN G., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-6170 JACKSON, EDELL V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-6602 CUNNINGHAM, SYLVESTER V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    23-6842 DOSS, REGINALD C. V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United 7 States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).

     

    Quote

    Statement of THOMAS, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DANE HARREL, ET AL. 23–877 v. KWAME RAOUL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. JAVIER HERRERA 23–878 v. KWAME RAOUL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. CALEB BARNETT, ET AL. 23–879 v. KWAME RAOUL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, ET AL. 23–880 v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS, ET AL. JEREMY W. LANGLEY, ET AL. 23–944 v. BRENDAN F. KELLY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, ET AL. GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. 23–1010 v. KWAME RAOUL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 23–877, 23–878, 23–879, 23–880, 23–944, 2 HARREL v. RAOUL Statement of THOMAS, J. and 23–1010. Decided July 2, 2024 The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. JUSTICE ALITO would grant the petitions for writs of certiorari. Statement of JUSTICE THOMAS. The State of Illinois enacted a law that makes it a felony to possess what Illinois branded “"""assault weapons""",” a term defined to include AR–15s. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/24–1.9(a)(1)(J)(ii)(II) (West 2023). “The AR–15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle” in America and is therefore undeniably “in common use today.” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1287 (CADC 2011) (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting); see also Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. 406, 430–431 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (describing “semiautomatic rifles” such as the AR–15 as “commonly available”). Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms.” The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction, concluding “that the AR–15 . . . is not protected by the Second Amendment.” Bevis v. Naperville, 85 F. 4th 1175, 1197 (2023). According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle selected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of the Arms referred to by the Second Amendment. Ibid. This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture. But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. To be sure, we explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment’s protection “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id., at 582. And, we noted that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” id., at 625, recognizing “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” id., at 627 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 417–419 (2016) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). But, this minimal guidance is far from a comprehensive framework for evaluating restrictions on types of weapons, and it leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon “bearable,” “dangerous,” or “unusual.” The Seventh Circuit’s decision illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers. By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect “militaristic” weapons. See 85 F. 4th, at 1199. It then tautologically defined “militaristic” weapons as those “that may be reserved for military use.” Id., at 1194. The Seventh Circuit’s contrived “non-militaristic” limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. 1039, 1041 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit’s application of its definition is nonsensical. See 85 F. 4th, at 1222 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“The AR–15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic”). In my view, Illinois’ ban is “highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1042 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. These petitions arise from a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely “a preliminary look at the subject.” 85 F. 4th, at 1197. But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1043 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).

     

  10. On 7/1/2024 at 8:21 PM, soundguy said:


    Not really picking on them. I worked in food service for a decade or so before I found something I liked better. When it comes to SS/FICA Tax, every little bit extra you contribute, with a matching amount from your employer, helps you at the end when you start getting it back. 
     

    If it were up to me, there would be no cap on FICA earnings and those who made too little money would get a credit for the first $20k or something, as though they had paid in. The employers would still make their contribution, to keep them from having only low paid employees for whom they did not have to contribute.


    Why should Oprah, Trump or all those sports figures get away with contributing to the system on only a tiny portion of their wages? I made more than the cap for a bunch of years… and the tiny savings didn’t make much difference. 
     

    Another fun idea is to pay real wages and no longer count on tips to make a living. Waiters become like beggars in our current tipping system. Some do well. Some are trapped in low pay jobs. 
     

    Cheers,

    Tim

     

    I waited tables at a couple of restaurants. It was not very different from any other job. Keep moving, stay busy and always be looking for work. Life isn't that hard of you put in the effort. A bad tip for me was 20%. 

     

    Social security is another example of how the government can find the worst possible way to do things. Let's force everyone to save their money and give them below market returns...heck, we might even rip it off once or twice. 

     

    The only thing worse is the Illinois pension giving ok returns with plans to actually fund it but being constitutionality required to pay it out. 

  11. On 7/1/2024 at 1:03 PM, soundguy said:


    Cash tips makes it much easier for tipped employees to avoid paying taxes on all of their income and contributing less into  social security. 
     

    Credit card for me. 
     

    Cheers,

    Tim

     

     

    Quote

    In 2024, the Social Security tax limit rises to $168,600. (For 2023, the tax limit was $160,200. So, if you earned more than $160,200 this last year, you didn't have to pay the Social Security payroll tax on the amount that exceeds that limit.) That can result in considerable tax savings for those who earn more than the wage base.

     

    You sure you're picking on the right people there?

  12. The thing I wonder about here is previously people would seek letters from the ATF on whether some new innovation was legal or not...or at least if they would prosecute or not. The ruling was clear that this ruling does not change the past, it only applies from this point forward, but it seems like the stakes have gone up in the infringement game. Now I would expect the ATF to single out the worst people for prosecution to open the door to prosecute everyone else, Rahimi style.

  13. On 6/25/2024 at 4:49 PM, yurimodin said:

    Man someone would really have to know what they are doing for that......I mean Chernobyl they had to manually disable a bunch of safeties and basically force it and that was a grooved & welded Soviet piece of fine machinery. 

     

    I imagine that someone that knows enough about those things knows the things you should never do. 

     

    Then again, this would have been a policy from the 40s-50s when these things were actually more about production of weapons so could be protection of the product too. 

  14. On 6/25/2024 at 3:58 PM, yurimodin said:

    Nuclear is a federal thing......I'm not really sure what they think someone could do against a shielded reactor but here we are.

     

    I doubt they are worried about Florida man shooting at the strange glowing thing because it looks weird like Joe Biden. Probably more to do with taking over the control room and doing Chernobyl stuff.

  15. On 6/25/2024 at 1:08 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

    I don't know that's 900 round a minute bump stock has machine guns beat all to heck.  (Tribune comments today, went from 400-600 to 900)

     

    One of these days I'd love to take a politician to the range and have them try to aim an AR with 900 rounds of 5.56 in a backpack hung from the rail. When they can't align the sights then I'll ask them to climb a couple of flights of stairs. Really would only need the backpack and the stairs to make the point but I have this picture in my head of the leverage sending the rifle out of their grip, cartwheeling embarrassingly down range. Then I could turn and ask them "So what do you think about that 900 rounds per minute now?"

×
×
  • Create New...