I will be 65 next year and will start paying IRMA. Do I wish it wasn't so sure, but I do understand how this works. I feel fortunate to be in this position and would rather be paying IRMA than not that means I am making more $$$$ which is a good thing. I look at it as a glass half full rather than half empty.
Social Security Retirement & Disability COLA 2025
- Thread starter fantastic
- Start date
I will be 65 next year and will start paying IRMA. Do I wish it wasn't so sure, but I do understand how this works. I feel fortunate to be in this position and would rather be paying IRMA than not that means I am making more $$$$ which is a good thing. I look at it as a glass half full rather than half empty.
I have about $1,500 in dental coverage included in my Medicare Advantage Plan. That basically covers cleanings, x- rays and the occasional fillings.
I stopped looking for fair a long time ago. There is no fair.
Personally I would rather be a high earner than a low earner.
That’s not ever really the problem. The problem is when some try to make it more fair for the poor.
Personally I don't sweat the small stuff. I don't think the poor have too much; they're poor. I focus on myself. I was raised to heal the sick and feed the poor. Helping others has proven to be one of the most satisfying things in my life. I have been working with my niece, a widower with 2 sets of twin girls. They give me purpose.
The best thing about Capitalism is, it has raised more people out of poverty than any other system. Economic growth through opportunity and innovation, coupled with complementary support is a winning combination to combat poverty and lift the entire population.
The promise of low cost, high quality education in California took a broken man and made him a very high tax payer. I believe in investment in people; it works.
We need to do more. Just my opinion.
Alarmguy: Thanks for pointing out that Aetna 2024 plan. I enrolled in it and got $1,200 paid back on a nice new bicycle. I wouldn`t have seen that without you pointing it out. I am changing insurers in 2026 as Aetna`s benefits are not as competitive as other Medicare Advantage plan options available to me.
Last edited:
I’m not saying it’s not good to help people in need.
I’m saying forced wealth redistribution should never be a thing. Mainly because it doesn’t work.
Taxes are considered forced redistribution, right? How ya gonna run a country? Roads, military, education, etc?
Most of my education was paid by forced redistribution. Those monies resulted in a huge ROI in taxes that I pay. It worked.
I am far more concerned with corporate welfare than public social programs, but recognize the government's role in projects too important and/or too big for private enterprise only.
Last edited:
Proper public education, roads, etc are not forced wealth redistribution
Handouts and the homeless industry are and they are clearly a huge failure.
That's a matter of opinion, at best.
Public education, roads, military, etc. are forms of wealth redistribution because they are funded by taxes collected from the general population and then provided to the public, benefiting low income individuals as well as high income indiciduals. While the taxes collected from the wealthiest citizens contribute a larger share toward these services, the services themselves are used disproportionately by the non-wealthy.
Sure but they can be used by everyone. Big difference.
No, this is not just a matter of opinion.
Certain things everyone uses and benefits from - your examples of public education, roads , military. We use a progressive tax system to force those most able to pay for those things to do so, to make the country more safe and efficient. The hope of course is more people use those benefits productively to enrich themselves so they can also pay more in the future.
However when you take excessive amounts of SS payroll taxes from the wealthy to hand out to those that paid in very little, that is pure redistribution. I am not saying its necessarily a bad thing - but it is absolutely different.
That is awesome. Love to hear feedback.
I left just over $400 on the table in my Aetna 2024 plan. The Apple Watch, 2 possibly 3 pickleball paddles, one of them close to $200.
Then life got in the way towards the end of 2024 with the prostate cancer diagnosis and forgot about the remaining money that was left.
In my area for 2025 Aetna dropped that plan so since they exited it, it gave me the chance to MediGap with out underwriting. Fresh with a cancer diagnosis and in a new home and new area. I chose the Medigap Plan N not knowing the networks and what I might need from all different networks here.
I do want to say though, during the 2024 exploratory evaluations and procedures including going to Duke Cancer Center in which 3 specialists spent the morning with my wife and I only to consult in addition to latest state of the art scans, multiple opinions closer to my home. NOT ONCE did Aetna hold anything up nor question anything. This has always been my experience with Advantage plans, previous ones were with United Health.
Ok, for 2026! Finished all my treatments, follow ups are coming up and taking place over the next several weeks, Im doing very well.
Yes, I am going back to an Advantage Plan. No it won't be Aetna, their out of pocket limits are way too high in this area now. Right now, still deciding from a couple plans. Two from North Carolina Blue Cross that will let me switch to a medigap plan without unwriting should I chose (but I never will) However one stand out for me is an offering from Humana which is $0.00 again, off the top of my head $3,100 or $3,500 out of pocket limit, 1.5 or 2k dental, $50 or so every three months and $250 or $300 for contact lens. $0 primary and get this $5 for a specialist (not a typo)
No referrals required. If I go BCBSNC the lower out of pocket I can get is $4,100 however they throw in an additional $500 for dental and I think $50 for contacts and ... well, I love shopping but it will be one of those 2. one is free one will cost an extra $40 a month that I may actually just get back in benefits. Both plans have every health network in their HMOs that I could possible go too, including Duke. I guess because costs are lower in the south almost every plan whether it is PPO or HMO/POS has the same networks which is everything available.
The reason Aetna cancelled our plan, it was in the media. It was to attract new people to Aetna, however Aetna took a bath in profits.
Im sure you noticed, all the plans have tightened up the free stuff a little bit. I have noticed that hands down but still some ok ones out there and thankful to be more Southeast than the Northeast states, it's brutal up there.
By definition, progressive taxation is income redistribution, right?
No, that is absolutely not the definition at all.
When I use tax dollars to build a public thing - like a bridge, when I am done its still in the public domain, for the benefit of all. Not redistribution.
When I use tax dollars to hand to an individual so they can spend them how they wish, it is not public domain at all. Its simply "redistribution" of dollars from one person or group to another person or group. There is no "public" involved
Progressive tax definition is simply taxing those with more money at a higher rate. ie those most able to pay (wealthier) pay more and at a higher tax rate.
Respectfully disagree. Some pay more taxes than others. That's income redistribution, regardless of where the tax dollars go.
Redistribution is a fundamental property of a progressive tax system; in fact it is the primary property.
The very structure of a progressive tax, where higher earners pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes, is designed to accomplish a redistribution of wealth.
Your not disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with economics definitions. I didn't make them up. Simply search in whatever engine you trust "is progressive tax and wealth redistribution the same thing". It will tell you no.
But your free to remain wrong as long as you like. It doesn't change anything.
Last edited:
No, this isnt correct but some of it is. I disagree strongly with the words "primary" secondary maybe yes.
Both discussions above are drawing too much of a hard line between the two. The line is blurry.
However, progressive taxation is not pure redistribution. Im posting a link below that I believe is the perfect explanation.
I think what you are missing out on is the more wealthy pay more in taxes lessening the burden of government functions on the less wealthy. They pay more and our entire society benefits in all things government does. From defending our country to building our roads.
Ok, however then we get to the blurry line as a secondary thing also takes place. Our government also redistributes some of that progressive tax income to the needy.
I think this is a great read...
"Progressive taxation has three primary social objectives. The most common is to redistribute the burden
of government taxation from those of lesser means to those more affluent. The second and least ac-
knowledged goal is to provide government with the means to redistribute income. The third, which
played an important role in the original public support for progressive taxation, is the contention of in-
tellectuals that the economic and political power of wealth requires curtailment."
Source - https://www.ipi.org/docLib/PR162-Hartman-Redistribution.pdf-OpenElement.pdf
Great discussion!
I would argue you are splitting hairs, using "the same thing". That's a different question.
Progressive taxation is a form of wealth redistribution; there are others.
Google, "is progressive tax wealth redistribution?"
Yet -there are a few on here that think it's sub standard care....I don't get it. You are proof it's not.
Good luck going down this road....
