Cheep,
A lot of misinformation has been posted on this subject. A new
Medicare law went into effect last year. The Medicare Part B premium
that most people start paying at age 65 is only 25% of the cost.
Since the Medicare trust fund is running out of money much faster
than the Retirement trust fund Congress decided higher income folks
should pay more than 25%. A lot of high income folks get their high
income from other places besides working which is why they use your
adjusted gross income for this calculation.
As usual the recreational gambler gets screwed because he does not
get to subtact his losses to determine his real income from
gambling. I would suggest your friend explain this to his elected
representatives as I am sure most of Congress is completely unaware
of this unintended consequence.
DRAINBRAMAGE,
You don't have to grind it on quarters to stay under the Social
Security earnings limit which is competely different from the
Medicare calculation. You aren't old enough for Medicare so go ahead
and play the $5 and the 100 play machines. W2Gs do not count for the
earnings test only real wages and self-employment income.
Chris
Harry
The details; Guy had over $200,000 W2Gs in 2006. He got on a $5 DDB
kick. As you know each 4kd is at least $1250. (What a dunce!) I say
that in a friendly tone as he is a friend of mine. He's about 69
yrs
old now. He also had some regular income. He speculates that he
missed some signers to the tune of 20 or 40 thousand; the price of
a
$5 royal or two. But, he's not sure if that's it. Since he was a
late filer in Oct 07 for his 06 tax, he has just got notice of
deduction in SS payments. He hasn't had time to sort out the
damage.
He also mentioned some kind of penalty. Might be a payback for
overpayment of SS for the 07 year. At this point in time he's not
sure what's going on.
From the posts to now, it's clear this is a subject thats worth
exploring by those of us in the AARP boat.
Cheers...Jeep
.
.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> My reply entails mere speculation. Among other things, specific
> income circumstances aren't revealed. Nor is the magnitude of the
> "big signers".
>
> However, as indicated in another reply, the income threshold over
> which the W2G's would need to push for this to be a consequence
of
a
> reduced benefit is something in excess of $200K. I'm wondering
if,
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@...> wrote:
> instead, what's happened is that involuntary tax withholding has
been
> imposed where there had been none before -- in response to the
failure
> to report income on the return.
>
> I agree with jeeps that this is something to be explored. If he
can
> review the circumstances in a little more detail it will be
helpful.
>
> - Harry
>