Are Old People the ruin of this country?

rabbitcaebannog said:

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

Click to expand...

Just have McDonalds pick it up and bring back the McRib year round.

They could even push prices down on those ribs with the boom generation reaching maximum age and all. Plenty of ribs to go 'round

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...

But how much will that dollar be worth ?

With over 17 trillion in debt, the only way out is to inflate our way out with printing money like we do now with nothing to back it up with and astronomical inflation.

Oh wait a minute, the discussion is about the boomers. ####, they'll do all right.

It's the slacker generation who are going to think they are living in a Zimbabwe poor house when they get old. They'll go nuts with everyone speaking in gibberish and who knows what kind of crap they will be fed. Probably soylent green or something like it.

rabbitcaebannog said:

soylent green?

Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

As I am almost 65 my views have probably changed. I did not make the rules and I did not agree with the rules. Paid into Medicare and SS for over 40 years. I think that they are lousy programs, poorly managed. If I were in charge and had to manage them, I would have increased the payroll taxes, especially on Medicare, and increased the age for full benefits, to make them self-sustaining. And I would put in means-testing. They should not cause economic hardship on the young. Unfortunately, that is not how things are. The Medicare program is sadly underfunded. Every one of the 77 million baby boomers should have c. $300,000 in a bank somewhere to cover SS and another $350,000 to cover health insurance. That would be $50 trillion saved up. Of course, we have $17.2 trillion in debt and nothing in the bank. Even that Clinton "surplus" that people like to talk about was only because SS is off the books and we had a surplus when he was President because the Baby Boomers were in their peak earning years. Instead of borrow from China, we borrowed from the SS fund and our debt went up every year.

I never wanted these programs and I never demanded more money or lower retirement age but at this point the country probably should keep it's word.

rabbitcaebannog said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh Lord! Please don't make me pay for my parents that raised me and cared for me! What a disaster! :rantoff:

That is actually the standard in most of the world. You should be asking yourself if it's moral to outsource monetary care of your aging parents to the federal government and tax payer, rather than taking care of your family yourself. Additionally, you should ask yourself if SS is preferred over personal savings.

SBu said:

Oh Lord! Please don't make me pay for my parents that raised me and cared for me! What a disaster! :rantoff:

That is actually the standard in most of the world. You should be asking yourself if it's moral to outsource monetary care of your aging parents to the federal government and tax payer, rather than taking care of your family yourself. Additionally, you should ask yourself if SS is preferred over personal savings.

Click to expand...

Um, things like social security become more important when one lives in the age of volatile markets. After our last meltdown, a huge amount of middle class people lost value on such things as property and/or any kind of private investment fund. While those two things are necessary, social security has been the bigger saving grace for people in the US.

Also, people should pay it forward. Social security makes more sense than on people's working income solely, don't ya think?

It is absolutely disgraceful that Liberals award so much American tax money to Democrat voting immigrants that there isn't enough money to take care of our own elderly.

Then the Mexicans send their American money home to Mexico to take care of their Mexican elderly.

The enormously corrupt Liberal Obama government has turned away from our own beloved elderly in order to keep themselves in office.

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...

Really? Perhaps you think that those in the trades can work past 65, but that poses other problems. The raising of the SS "full benefit" age results in ever more folks qualifying for the (even higher) SS disability check instead. For every senior that must continue to work, past the current SS benefit age, that is one less (good?) job available for another US worker. IMHO, we should not raise the SS full benefit age since it is already much higher than the gov't employee full benefit age, instead we should raise the gov't employee retirement age to match that of SS.

At age 60 I am certainly not able to work as much, as hard or as fast as I could a mere decade ago. I somewhat make up for that by working a bit smarter and recruiting (and training) younger helpers on occasion, but to expect a person of 65 (or older) to be able to stay on a framing, roofing, landscaping or plumbing crew is not really as practical as you make it seem.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Um, things like social security become more important when one lives in the age of volatile markets.

Click to expand...

In what way? Because you declare it so?

rabbitcaebannog said:

After our last meltdown, a huge amount of middle class people lost value on such things as property and/or any kind of private investment fund. While those two things are necessary, social security has been the bigger saving grace for people in the US.

Click to expand...

In three years, property values have mostly bounced back (unless you made an incredibly bad real estate decision), and investments have broken records. Are you telling me that someone that retired didn't have any savings to account for a recession lasting only 2-3 years? That just convinces me more that we shouldn't have such a program if reliance is so great on it.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Also, people should pay it forward. Social security makes more sense than on people's working income solely, don't ya think?

Click to expand...

I don't think any insolvent program is better than my savings, investments, or working income. Pay it forward? Seriously?

You can argue all you want that we must have government dependency, but the numbers simply won't work long term. We see examples of failed socialized states all the time. Any extension of these programs (in their current form), not to mention Expansion is a temporary pipe dream that digs us further in the hole. Sure we party presently, but the music will stop one day, and it will be a complete mess.

You want to approach me with an idea about a Federal tax to build retirement homes for poor elderly and the disabled, I would probably agree to that. No doubt if THAT was the freebee, you would see dramatic dropout from this program and it would be limited to those who really need it. Unfortunately, most people would have to go back to work because they didn't save a penny...such is life.

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? Perhaps you think that those in the trades can work past 65, but that poses other problems. The raising of the SS "full benefit" age results in ever more folks qualifying for the (even higher) SS disability check instead. For every senior that must continue to work, past the current SS benefit age, that is one less (good?) job available for another US worker. IMHO, we should not raise the SS full benefit age since it is already much higher than the gov't employee full benefit age, instead we should raise the gov't employee retirement age to match that of SS.

At age 60 I am certainly not able to work as much, as hard or as fast as I could a mere decade ago. I somewhat make up for that by working a bit smarter and recruiting (and training) younger helpers on occasion, but to expect a person of 65 (or older) to be able to stay on a framing, roofing, landscaping or plumbing crew is not really as practical as you make it seem.

Click to expand...

Which is why children should take care of their parents if they can't take care of themselves at that age. This is the standard in the rest of the world. Of course that would mean maybe they would have to give up cable, 55" tv, 40" rim impala, etc. #firstworldproblems

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...

Soylent green, you think?

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? Perhaps you think that those in the trades can work past 65, but that poses other problems. The raising of the SS "full benefit" age results in ever more folks qualifying for the (even higher) SS disability check instead. For every senior that must continue to work, past the current SS benefit age, that is one less (good?) job available for another US worker. IMHO, we should not raise the SS full benefit age since it is already much higher than the gov't employee full benefit age, instead we should raise the gov't employee retirement age to match that of SS.

At age 60 I am certainly not able to work as much, as hard or as fast as I could a mere decade ago. I somewhat make up for that by working a bit smarter and recruiting (and training) younger helpers on occasion, but to expect a person of 65 (or older) to be able to stay on a framing, roofing, landscaping or plumbing crew is not really as practical as you make it seem.

Click to expand...

A strong case can be made for incentivizing people to retire EARLIER - thus opening positions for people to move up, and the young to get employment. The only real question is how you pay for it ..

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...

Who is going to take the place of our grandmothers and grandfathers? Many parents don't have the time or smarts.

SBu said:

In what way? Because you declare it so?



In three years, property values have mostly bounced back (unless you made an incredibly bad real estate decision), and investments have broken records. Are you telling me that someone that retired didn't have any savings to account for a recession lasting only 2-3 years? That just convinces me more that we shouldn't have such a program if reliance is so great on it.



I don't think any insolvent program is better than my savings, investments, or working income. Pay it forward? Seriously.

Click to expand...

Will your savings be finite as once you use it, it is gone or will there be a guaranteed payout until your death? So many young people are very shortsighted.

GBFAN said:

A strong case can be made for incentivizing people to retire EARLIER - thus opening positions for people to move up, and the young to get employment. The only real question is how you pay for it ..

Click to expand...

It would appear that we, as a society. now prefer to pay folks not to work or to supplement a McJob to the extent that it becomes a McCareer.

SBu said:

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.

Click to expand...

We need to remember WHY we have these programs or what old age was like without them because we are generations away from the horrors of the poor houses. Virtually every Western nation has retirement programs for the elderly because we were appalled by what is was like without them.
You WILL get you SS benefits by the way.

SBu said:

Which is why children should take care of their parents if they can't take care of themselves at that age. This is the standard in the rest of the world. Of course that would mean maybe they would have to give up cable, 55" tv, 40" rim impala, etc. #firstworldproblems

Click to expand...

I assume they still must give up over 12% of their entire lifetime income to fund SS/Medicare as well

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...

If you think you will get back from SS what you put in, you are fooling yourself. It might be possible if you retire for four times the number of years you actually worked and paid SS taxes. Not many (if any) can say the can do that.

Woodman909 said:

If you think you will get back from SS what you put in, you are fooling yourself. It might be possible if you retire for four times the number of years you actually worked and paid SS taxes. Not many (if any) can say the can do that.

Click to expand...

Actually, many people get back far more than they ever paid in.

So, I'm one of those "old people" and I could manage without Social Security if it were removed tomorrow. OTOH, I paid in a lot of money and I don't see why I should refuse the return of my own money.

My suggestion is that all Seniors be offered a choice of receiving the SS or receiving a refund of their paid in funds. This might reduce the burden somewhat since I'm pretty sure that I would take the cash and so would Mitt Romney. Those who had no resources would still need to receive their checks.









(I have far less than Mitt does but still....I could manage)

iguanaman said:

We need to remember WHY we have these programs or what old age was like without them because we are generations away from the horrors of the poor houses. Virtually every Western nation has retirement programs for the elderly because we were appalled by what is was like without them.
You WILL get you SS benefits by the way.

Click to expand...

I would like to see you qualify this statement.

Those funds — a $2.7 trillion buffer built in anticipation of retiring baby boomers — will be exhausted by 2033, the government currently projects.

Those facts are widely known. What’s not is that the Social Security Administration underestimates how long Americans will live and how much the trust funds will need to pay out — to the tune of $800 billion by 2031, more than the current annual defense budget — and that the trust funds will run out, if nothing is done, two years earlier than the government has predicted.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?_r=0

That 2033 year correlated by the liberal Huffington Post (though they see this limited solvency as some kind of victory despite it being insolvent long term)

Fred Lundgren: The Myth of Social Security's Insolvency

By most accounts, Americans haven't been seeing increasing wages and salaries over the last decade or so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html

The cost of living will keep going up. Inflation will keep going up (whether controlled or not). All things being equal, we will have smaller paychecks to pull from to pay for SS as the baby boomers are hitting prime retirement age.

Not to mention, according to the CBO fewer Americans will choose to be full time employed due to Obamacare (not losing their jobs necessarily as this article explains, although GOP pundits like to scream it). So you now have fewer people choosing to work full time which will also put a dent in our ability to pull from paychecks that would otherwise be full time paychecks.

Moreover, the argument could go, this would hurt the nation’s budget because 2.3 million fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. That’s certainly an intellectually solid argument — though others might counter that universal health care is worth a reduction in overall employment — but it’s not at all the same as saying that all of these jobs would be lost.

Click to expand...

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs

All signs point to the baby boomers retiring soon and pushing the SS ponzi scheme over the edge, and at the same time the pool of money to pull from getting smaller or at least stagnant as the cost of living and inflation keep rising (small or large though the rise may be). We are robbing Peter (the young) to pay Paul (the old) and one day the music will stop or we'll have to outright murder Peter to pay Paul (i.e. raise taxes to crushing levels or nationalization of pension funds and other assets to borrow money to pay for the extension of this out of control program).
Here's an example:
Poland Confiscates Half Of Private Pension Funds To "Cut" Sovereign Debt Load | Zero Hedge


Sorry if I don't take your word for it without a little backup.

ttwtt78640 said:

I assume they still must give up over 12% of their entire lifetime income to fund SS/Medicare as well

Click to expand...

I would doubt it, but then again, this discussion is fictional in nature. I would much rather Federal government allow us to keep that '12%' to invest or spend as we see fit.

I do understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, and occasionally we need to invest overwhelmingly in our populace to fend off overwhelmingly dire consequences, but to keep these policies in place long term, expand them, and sell them as an entitlement is a recipe for what we will face in 2033.

Woodman909 said:

If you think you will get back from SS what you put in, you are fooling yourself. It might be possible if you retire for four times the number of years you actually worked and paid SS taxes. Not many (if any) can say the can do that.

Click to expand...

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

Nope.

SBu said:

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.

Click to expand...

Which sort of personal savings do you think would work? Not the stock market, it can fluctuate too much and that isn't what retirement accounts to which should be subject. A home? by the time you finish paying for it, you have bought it 2 or three times over give or take a few interest points and years on the note. depending on inflation it is most likely a push and you'd need to buy a new place to live.

I don't know why you think SS will not be there for you, true some on the extreme right are doing their best to keep reform from stabilizing the program, but the problem is not unlike the egg passing through a snake. The Baby Boomer generation came about by a very rare occurrence, the end of WWII with millions of service men coming home- unlike Germany, England and the USSR. Like gas, once the Baby Boomers pass through the system a far more normal pattern will be set in place.