Are Old People the ruin of this country?

A serious question.

In 1900, 1 in 25 Americans was 65 or older. Here are numbers now:

[h=4]40.3 million[/h]The number of people who were 65 and older in the United States on April 1, 2010, accounting for 13 percent of the total population. In 2010, this age group was larger than in any other decennial census, up from 31.2 million in 1990 and 35.0 million in 2000.
Source: The Older Population: 2010 <http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-09.pdf>
[h=4]88.5 million[/h]Projected population of people 65 and older in 2050. People in this age group would comprise 20 percent of the total population at that time.
Source: Population projections <http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html>
[h=4]35[/h]The projected number of people 65 and older of traditional working ages (ages 20 to 64) to every 100 people in 2030, up from 22 in 2010. This time period coincides with the time when all baby boomers will have moved into the 65 and older age category. (The figures for 2010 are not census counts.)
Source: The Next Four Decades: The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050< Aging Boomers Will Increase Dependency Ratio, Census Bureau Projects - Aging Population - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau>
[h=4]42%[/h]The percentage of the 65 and older population expected to be a minority - i.e., a group other than single race, non-Hispanic white - in 2050, more than double the percentage in 2010 (20 percent). Likewise, among those 85 and older, 33 percent are projected to be a minority in 2050, up from 15 percent in 2010.
Source: The Next Four Decades: The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050< Aging Boomers Will Increase Dependency Ratio, Census Bureau Projects - Aging Population - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau>

- - - - - -

Understand, that is compared to 100% of the population - INCLUDING CHILDREN - which are 23% of the population.

USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

That means 1 in 6 adults are 65 and older. That is quickly going to become 1 in 5 and then 1 in 4...

All eligible for Social Security and all other benefits. Even if millionaires. They will claim they earned it and that was the "deal" of social security, but the life expectancy was age 67 - or 2 years. So to those seniors who claim that even if they don't need the money it would break the deal for them not to get it - which is true other than the seniors are breaking "the deal" because they were supposed to die pretty quickly.

The older generation created the massive levels of federal, state and local government. They created the massive intrusions and involvements all over the world. The gained political offices by promising everything to everyone - without ever bothering to wonder who will pay for it. They basically wrote themselves massive loans against all future generations - and now expect to be paid to do nothing too.

But MY greater concern is the radical control-freakism of old folks. I see this on this forum. They are TERRIFIED of death. TERRIFIED of anything that may poise 1/1,000,000th of a chance someone gets hurt. They want everything they don't like criminalized with extreme penalties. They want the government to be their parents. They expect everyone to take care of them because "they earned it." Many act like spoiled bratty teenagers personally.

I saw a bumper stick on a million dollar motorhome that read "We're spending our children's inheritance." And my thought is yeah, they certainly did just that.

But again my concern is the millions and millions of pages of laws they made and want more, wanting the government to police, watch and control everyone.

What is your opinion? I know there are a lot of old people on this forum.

MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL, NOT PUBLIC VOTING

The advancement of modern medicine, expanding life spans and dropping birth rates is something no one would have thought possible to this extent.

It's the first time in human history it's occurred and we're going to see interesting changes come of it...

As humans, we find ways to adapt and I think we're going to see absolutely astonishing changes in old age care going forward out of pure nessecaty, much of which will likely be pioneered by Japan who will be the first, first world country to deal with this radical shift in a massive way.

I believe these changes to come will soften the affect of the looming aging population crisis.

So no, old people are not the ruin of any nation.

Which old people? According to your own data there are 88 million of them, and I don't think they're all troublemakers.

You can take any demographic in this country and somehow turn it into a zero-sum game where the blame all rests on them. The reality is that our country is complicated and a lot of things are contributing to our challenges.

I'm not even that old and I can remember a time when people felt that America could work through anything. Now we're blaming old people? What kind of wussy non-sense is this.

There are a few here that I have some general idea of their age because of what they've said and I don't see them saying anything that makes me think they're any more into controlling everybody through legislation than anyone else.

Well, yes, in a way, you're right Joko. That being said, and I'm not officially old yet, the SS system was in place well before most of us were born, and we had no choice as to whether or not to participate, so as far as I am concerned, I fully expect to get back what I have put in over the (so far) 40 years of my working life, and I still have another 12 years to go, assuming that I live to retirement age. Anyone with half a brain should have realized, even back when it was first instituted, that we would be facing this problem, but our government unfortunately decided that we had to do it anyway, and I see no signs of meaningful changes being instituted. Long term, we're pretty much screwed as a country, as far as economic stability goes.

Hmm. Old people, eh? As in those folks who didn't have the decency to die early enough, and are now an inconvenience. What should be done with them? I have some ideas:

1) Pass a law that constitutional protections no longer apply to persons 60 and older.
2) Deny them the right to vote, drive, own property or belong to a political party.
3) If any of them object, euthanize those suckers with extreme prejudice.
4) Confiscate their money and property to help pay off the national debt.

That ought to teach them to die at a reasonable age. Problem solved!

lizzie said:

Well, yes, in a way, you're right Joko. That being said, and I'm not officially old yet, the SS system was in place well before most of us were born, and we had no choice as to whether or not to participate, so as far as I am concerned, I fully expect to get back what I have put in over the (so far) 40 years of my working life, and I still have another 12 years to go, assuming that I live to retirement age. Anyone with half a brain should have realized, even back when it was first instituted, that we would be facing this problem, but our government unfortunately decided that we had to do it anyway, and I see no signs of meaningful changes being instituted. Long term, we're pretty much screwed as a country, as far as economic stability goes.

Click to expand...

Even more than that, there are laws in place that actually hinder a person's ability to save for their own retirement, like limits on what you can put into IRAs and into deferred comp package. Government sure doesn't want to have to forgo those hefty social security withholdings. They made it, as you say, so that you pretty much had no choice. It's not the people fault that the money has been mismanaged. If someone pays into SS their whole lives, they should get back what they paid in. I don't agree with means testing either. Government wanted this, government needs to honor it's commitment.

Get rid of SS and incentivize personal savings instead of paying into a system we'll never have the benefit of using ourselves. It's really a flawed system to begin with. Not necessarily the fault of 'old people', just the same misguided social welfare BS that people have been blinded by for generations.

Joko, what is you answer to this "problem"?

SS is a promise and everyone who earns a paycheck has been paying into it their who working life. Seriously, what would you suggest?

Do remember, that you will be an old people someday, if you are fortunate enough to live that long. The alternative sucks.

Don't trust anyone over 30 .... Jerry Rubin

:mrgreen:

Thom Paine

Gina said:

Joko, what is you answer to this "problem"?

SS is a promise and everyone who earns a paycheck has been paying into it their who working life. Seriously, what would you suggest?

Do remember, that you will be an old people someday, if you are fortunate enough to live that long. The alternative sucks.

Click to expand...

No. SS is a tax designed to pay to the people currently using it, and only solvent enough to pay for the next 20ish years because of the projected people to be using it beyond. 'SS is a promise'? :lamo

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) and/or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund which comprise the Social Security Trust Funds.

Click to expand...

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lizzie said:

Well, yes, in a way, you're right Joko. That being said, and I'm not officially old yet, the SS system was in place well before most of us were born, and we had no choice as to whether or not to participate, so as far as I am concerned, I fully expect to get back what I have put in over the (so far) 40 years of my working life, and I still have another 12 years to go, assuming that I live to retirement age. Anyone with half a brain should have realized, even back when it was first instituted, that we would be facing this problem, but our government unfortunately decided that we had to do it anyway, and I see no signs of meaningful changes being instituted. Long term, we're pretty much screwed as a country, as far as economic stability goes.

Click to expand...

The social security system was created to deal with a very real life-death situation. A person could reach old age and be in poor health - and could literally starve to death or die in the cold. The social security system was to provide a minimal old-age safety net. And at a time when the average life span was age 67. Some would live older, but an equal number wouldn't make 65. That is ALL social security was.

2 years of average enough-to-survive safety net became 20 years of employment free retirement, plus health care. plus disability, plus surviving spouses plus, plus, plus.

Here's a number I would like to see someone factor. To figure the average amount a person would have paid into the social security system over 45 years and calculate what that would have earned in treasury note interests (ie savings bonds). How much money would that be now? Versus what does social security now cost on average for everyone gathering social security for one reason or another and other old-age benefits (ie "entitlements").

Gina said:

Joko, what is you answer to this "problem"?

SS is a promise and everyone who earns a paycheck has been paying into it their who working life. Seriously, what would you suggest?

Do remember, that you will be an old people someday, if you are fortunate enough to live that long. The alternative sucks.

Click to expand...

I suggest 2 things (actual more but these the most obvious)

1. To go a means test. Yeah, rich old people will rage. But there is no reason to give social security benefits to millionaires. This would allow more for others who really need it.

2. "Retirement" USED to basically mean a person was too old to work anymore. The age needs to evolve upward (older). It really doesn't work for a person to pay $150 a month into social security for 40 years and then get $1500 a month plus medical care and the rest for 3 decades. The math doesn't work.

If a person wants to quit working when 65, they should save money to do so. Social security was never meant to be a pension. Rather an avoidance of abject poverty. The reason it would have to evolve to older ages is too many people came to believe social security is their old age pension fund.

The reason to evolve it to an older age is because the system can't afford otherwise and most people are still plenty fit to work at 65.

DiAnna said:

Hmm. Old people, eh? As in those folks who didn't have the decency to die early enough, and are now an inconvenience. What should be done with them? I have some ideas:

1) Pass a law that constitutional protections no longer apply to persons 60 and older.
2) Deny them the right to vote, drive, own property or belong to a political party.
3) If any of them object, euthanize those suckers with extreme prejudice.
4) Confiscate their money and property to help pay off the national debt.

That ought to teach them to die at a reasonable age. Problem solved!

Click to expand...

Not all problems have a solution. Sneering certainly isn't a solution.

I also am talking about shifting social attitudes and part I think is due to the increasing influence of an aging population and part is due to the extreme post-WWII wealth of the USA - that somehow seems to have lead to 1.) people think they are owed something and 2.) increasing numbers of people who do not have their goal as to advance and achieve, but instead to hunker down and be safe at any costs. The latter are diametrically oppose views of life.

I am going to be old someday, but also expect society to be radically different. Mostly, I expect people to be increasingly put into monitored sheeple roles. As I write this, there are drives to put into place systems into cars to track the movement and legality of everyone's actions and facial recognition cameras so it is known where everyone is at all times, plus ever millions more cameras watch with computers doing the monitoring.

Overall, I expect civil liberties and capitalism on an individual level to continue to decline. The politics will continue to go to the left and government will continue to grow - good or bad however a person sees that.

I do not expect the US economy to do well and we are in a managed decline now - specifically via inflation which is the only way to spread less wealth around while trying to erase increasing debt. Inflation erases debt.

As for social security? I do not believe it will exist in its current form. Rather, I expect that everyone regardless of age while have a minimal assured income. At all ages a person will have a means to survive by not working, but everyone of any age will have incentive to try to earn more money if possible. In short, I don't think the current system will continue indefinitely.

I also expect things such as healthcare to become treadmill, except for the wealthy. If you are ill you get on the treadmill and go thru the system. What you pay will be based upon your income. The healthcare you receive is what is dictated unless you can afford to do otherwise - and most won't be able to.

With over 50% of the adult population over 65 and of those who aren't, 20% or more work in some government capacity, means they system as it is can not survive no matter how you adjust it.

The only "hope" lies in technological advances not economic policy and certainly not politics. Not everything has a solution. The SS system as it is now will die - one way or another over the next 2 decades.

That all assumes there is not some massive economic or social upheaval along the way - which can erase all wealth and cause radical social change.

joko104 said:

Not all problems have a solution. Sneering certainly isn't a solution.

Click to expand...

What? In your OP you were bent out of shape because old people were all involved in politics and government, supporting laws you don't like, spending their children's inheritance, and you asked people what they thought about that, ostensibly asking for potential solutions. The solutions I outlined would solve all the things you complained about in the OP. I thought you'd be grateful!

I also am talking about shifting social attitudes and part I think is due to the increasing influence of an aging population and part is due to the extreme post-WWII wealth of the USA - that somehow seems to have lead to 1.) people think they are owed something and 2.) increasing numbers of people who do not have their goal as to advance and achieve, but instead to hunker down and be safe at any costs. The latter are diametrically oppose views of life.

Click to expand...

OMG, that's awful! People who have money yanked out of their checks for 40 years based upon the promise that they would have certain benefits in their old age actually think they are owed something?? Bwahahaha!!! Old people are so stupid! :lol:

Even worse are those who, after 40+ years of working, no longer have the goal to advance and achieve, but want to hunker down and be safe. The audacity!! Anyone who wants to sit back and enjoy their final years without continuing to advance and achieve have no damned right to be safe! They should be forced by law to take up bungie-jumping or skydiving! That's advancement; that's achievement. And if the cord breaks or the chute doesn't open, then we can confiscate their money and property to help pay off the national debt!

See, you brought me more problems, I brought you more solutions. You're welcome!

SBu said:

No. SS is a tax designed to pay to the people currently using it, and only solvent enough to pay for the next 20ish years because of the projected people to be using it beyond. 'SS is a promise'? :lamo



Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes, you put your money in and it will be there when you retire. I don't see anything that says it won't be. Of course no one foresaw the baby boom, which is the generation under discussion.

joko104 said:

I suggest 2 things (actual more but these the most obvious)

1. To go a means test. Yeah, rich old people will rage. But there is no reason to give social security benefits to millionaires. This would allow more for others who really need it.

2. "Retirement" USED to basically mean a person was too old to work anymore. The age needs to evolve upward (older). It really doesn't work for a person to pay $150 a month into social security for 40 years and then get $1500 a month plus medical care and the rest for 3 decades. The math doesn't work.

If a person wants to quit working when 65, they should save money to do so. Social security was never meant to be a pension. Rather an avoidance of abject poverty. The reason it would have to evolve to older ages is too many people came to believe social security is their old age pension fund.

The reason to evolve it to an older age is because the system can't afford otherwise and most people are still plenty fit to work at 65.

Click to expand...

What do you suggest for now, because none of this can be fairly implemented now. Maybe for those under 55, which includes me. I'm not against means testing, though yeah, it's kind of unfair. Maybe just pay them back exactly what they put in?

But none of this is at the feet of old people. Old people have not ruined our country. The hard work of these people helped to make it prosperous. Point your finger in another direction for where the blame lies for our current economic problems.

“The Little Boy and the Old Man

Said the little boy, "Sometimes I drop my spoon."
Said the old man, "I do that too."
The little boy whispered, "I wet my pants."
I do that too," laughed the little old man.
Said the little boy, "I often cry."
The old man nodded, "So do I."
But worst of all," said the boy, "it seems
Grown-ups don't pay attention to me."
And he felt the warmth of a wrinkled old hand.
I know what you mean," said the little old man.”
― Shel Silverstein


“When we age we shed many skins: ego, arrognace, dominance, self-opionated, unreliable, pessimism, rudeness, selfish, uncaring ... Wow, it's good to be old!”
― Stephen Richards


"في الستين من العمر ، نحن بالكاد بلغنا الثلثين من عمرنا ، لذا ينبغي ألا ندفن أنفسنا ! ينبغي العيش !”
― Tahar Ben Jelloun, البلد


“I Didn't Ask to Be a Senior Citizen (I Was Drafted)”
― Doug Jensen, Looking in the Rear View Mirror


“Old ones should respect the energy of youths and youths should respect the experience of old ones.”
― Amit Kalantri

Gina said:

Yes, you put your money in and it will be there when you retire. I don't see anything that says it won't be. Of course no one foresaw the baby boom, which is the generation under discussion.

Click to expand...

Still pretty funny. 1. Probably won't be there for my generation 2. People have been discussing the baby boomer effects for the last 20+ years

As for me, I'm operating under the assumption that I have to count on my own savings and responsibility and not the good will tax of those younger than me. That is what you call personal responsibility. It doesn't even cross my mind that I would rely on social security because responsible people don't rely on others for their own well being.

It's not a promise. Ideologically, it started out as a safety net, then politicians turned it into a benefit, which became an entitlement, which now has become an ideological 'promise.' Ridiculous. It's the money federal government takes out of my paycheck to pay for a myriad social benefits for others, and that will either totally collapse in the next 20 years or be significantly degraded remnants of its current self.

It's not just us. A lot of countries are dealing with aging populations and how to pay for them. China, Japan, Europe. It will be the death of socialist leaning liberalism when the younger generations figure out that they are the ones stuck with the bill at the end of this ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment [social program] operation that pays returns to its investors [baby boomers] from existing capital or new capital paid by new investors [my generation]

Click to expand...

what was that film where they secretly killed old people and fed them to society?

It's all about how you frame the argument. It's pretty convenient for people who dictate policies to frame it in such a way to make aging seem like some kind of greed scheme to steal money from their "children". Don't fall for this hype. The truth is if it wasn't for SS, many retirees would have to be cared for by their children. A major problem we face today is real wages for most American workers have lagged productivity for the past 40 years. That has surely effected the amount of money being put aside for this program.
Snip:
"It’s difficult to gauge the combined effect of slow wage growth and rising inequality since the two are related—the taxable earnings cap is indexed to average wages. It’s probably fair to say, however, that robust full-employment and pro-worker policies could eliminate half to three-fourths of the shortfall. These calculations don’t take into account other full-employment effects, such as reduced unemployment and disability rates, which are harder to estimate with available information.

- See more at: Wages and Social Security | Economic Policy Institute

Higgins86 said:

what was that film where they secretly killed old people and fed them to society?

Click to expand...

soylent green?

rabbitcaebannog said:

soylent green?

Click to expand...

that's the one...great idea

Higgins86 said:

that's the one...great idea

Click to expand...

With the dog eat dog mentality being pushed on today's generation......:lol: