治疗幻想到哪家医院好南昌市南昌啥办法能治抑郁症,南昌双向情感障碍那个医院治的好呢,南昌治焦虑症医院那家好,精神官能症南昌哪个医院治疗,南昌哪个治疗幻视医院比较好,南昌什么医院治听幻较好,南昌那个治双向情感障碍医院好

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771

TAMPA, Fla. -- Business is booming at the Florida Gun Show at the Florida State Fairgrounds. But as doors open there is a buzz in the air over the possibility of stricter gun laws.In response to the Parkland school shooting, Florida Gov. Rick Scott says no to bump stocks, no guns for the mentally ill and yes to raising the age you can buy legally buy one.You won’t find an AR-15 ban or extended background checks in Scott's plan. But in a break from the National Rifle Association, of which Scott is a member, he does not want to arm teachers.At the gun show, Scripps station WFTS in Tampa found a split in support from his own constituents.“Change needs to happen and I don’t see why not try something," said Jason Walker said, long-time gun owner and an Air Force member.When it comes to Scott's plan, Walker said he supports it overall.Eric Oyola on the other hand said he does not. He is the owner of Class 3 Outbreak, a gun manufacturer."I think the laws that we have in place right now are good enough to prevent any crime," said Oyola. “They’re just taking the rights from the law abiding citizens for people that are going to do it anyways.”Oyola is talking about the bump stock ban. As an AR-15 dealer, he especially rebuffs any plans that would target these types of guns. No worries for him under Scott’s proposal. The governor also rejects banning them.Scott does, however, want to raise the age you can buy from 18 to 21-years-old.“If you can fight for your country, come home and not be able to have an AR-15 or even buy a rifle, I think it’s not fair," Oyola said.“I don’t believe you should be able to buy a long gun at age 18," said Walker.Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said believes without an AR-15 ban the proposal does not have any teeth.“It’s a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t get at the core problem of how you are going to stop a person with an assault weapon of walking into a crowded place," Sen. Nelson said.What about Scott’s plan to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?“It’s going to be a hard thing to do because people at any time can flip out whether they are under the radar or not," said Walker.Neither Walker nor Oyola are convinced it will work. What about the so-called gun show loophole where private sellers aren’t required to conduct a background check?“Absolutely, everybody should have a background check," said Walker.“I’m a licensed dealer," said Oyola, "If you can’t pass a gun background check, you shouldn’t have a gun.”A consensus? Still, background checks aren’t in Scott’s plan either. The governor is also calling for a 0 million plan to increase school security. It includes placing police officers in every school in the state. Plus, hiring more mental health professionals.The Florida House and Senate have until the end of session on March 9 to pass any new gun legislation. 2891

Thanks to @blackdoctor_org for asking this question. And, for Dr. Fauci for now making it likely impossible to enforce “Kizzmekia” cause everyone now knows he’s allowed to say “Kizzy”. Haha ?? https://t.co/AUsDNN7hVh pic.twitter.com/c4xIvqtLXg— KizzyPhD (@KizzyPhD) December 10, 2020 297

Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke is trailing in the polls in his race to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, but his effort is raising an unprecedented amount of money.O'Rourke's Senate campaign announced Friday a record-smashing third quarter fundraising haul of .1 million. It's the most ever raised in a quarter by a US Senate campaign.O'Rourke's campaign has obliterated fundraising records throughout the race, even as polls have consistently shown Cruz with a comfortable lead in the high-profile Senate contest. Last quarter, O'Rourke made headlines with what was then a record-breaking haul of .4 million.Cruz's campaign had an impressive third quarter itself, raising in million between July and the end of September. Neither campaign has yet announced their cash-on-hand total at the end of the third quarter, though O'Rourke led Cruz by over million at the end of the second quarter.The O'Rourke campaign, which has rejected PAC money, announced that the .1 million haul was "powered by 802,836 individual contributions," and said that the "majority of the fundraising c[ame] from Texas.""The people of Texas in all 254 counties are proving that when we reject PACs and come together not as Republicans or Democrats but as Texans and Americans, there's no stopping us," O'Rourke said in a statement. "This is a historic campaign of people: all people, all the time, everywhere, every single day -- that's how we're going to win this election and do something incredible for Texas and our country at this critical moment."Even as O'Rourke has enjoyed a fundraising bonanza driven by a series of viral campaign moments and the national media spotlight, the fundamentals of the race continue to favor Cruz. CNN rates the race as lean Republican.No Democrat has won statewide office in Texas since 1994, and a Quinnipiac University poll released this week found Cruz leading O'Rourke by 9 points, 54% to 45%. 1952

Stephen Miller became the latest member of the Trump administration to test positive for the coronavirus, CNN and the New York Times reported on Tuesday. 162