Posted on 05/05/2013 6:12:39 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
I couldn’t help but notice the amount of boomer-directed venom expressed in the comments section of yesterday’s thread.
I’ve noticed it many times before. Actually, I’ve noticed it almost every time I write about—well, about my generation. And here I think we need a musical interlude:
< snip>
Note, of course, the verse:
People try to put us d-down (Talkin’ ’bout my generation)
Just because we get around (Talkin’ ’bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin’ ’bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin’ ’bout my generation)
(Excerpt) Read more at neoneocon.com ...
Boomers never had this option. Our wages have been stolen from our entire working careers. While we were in the work force, our numbers were so great, it made it easy to steal from us and buy elderly votes while pretending there was no problem spending every dime we sent in without putting it away for our retirement needs.
What I propose would end this monstrosity at a cost less burdensome to younger generations. In fact, it raises your pay every time on of us dies. If you are 45, it gives you a twenty year head start on putting money aside for your own retirement that the government can't take away from you. It gives your children back their economic freedom. It does all of this without euthanasia or starvation being part of the mix.
How can you state that those twenty years away don't get anything positive from this? They get a graduating tax deduction, ownership of their own futures rather than government financial imprisonment, and economic freedom for their children.
This monster doesn't have a simple "on-off" switch. It has to receive support from everyone involved to gain acceptance. Tell me how your proposal to stop paying into the system can gain acceptance or face the reality that we are all in this together as a solution.
The problem cannot be eliminated without accounting for the die-off time of recipients. This means that taxes must be taken from paychecks as long as it takes to fund however many recipients there are. Over a forty or so year length of time, the numbers will diminish gradually (meaning less money out everyone's paychecks) to the point of extinction. After this point, the program is officially ended. Meanwhile, those who are not ever going to be eligible to receive benefits have a long enough time to actually do better for themselves than the lying, cheating government ever could have.
“What I propose would end this monstrosity at a cost less burdensome to younger generations”
Balderdash. Your plan provides an immediate benefit to the boomers, (no surprise there), an guarantee of future benefits to the boomers, (also no surprise there).
So who gets left holding the bag? Young folks. Everyone who’s not a boomer. I congratulate you on managing to shaft everyone, while still guaranteeing that Boomers get every dime of social security.
It’s marvelous, so I guarantee you that something like this would pass because it benefits boomers to the exclusion of everyone else.
Problem - what happens when we check out of the system altogether?
“It has to receive support from everyone involved to gain acceptance. Tell me how your proposal to stop paying into the system can gain acceptance or face the reality that we are all in this together as a solution.”
I’ve offered a counterproposal, providing all the ‘merits’ (ie, boomer goodies), while providing the essential breaker switch - ending social security for everyone who now enters the workforce. Those in it now would have your system - those entering into it would be exempt.
Congress could easily pass a breaker switch for those under 18 today. Exempt them from social security payments forever and the system will die. I’m ok with my generation getting screwed to end the plan, but only if there’s a guarantee in those coming later to be exempt.
“This means that taxes must be taken from paychecks as long as it takes to fund however many recipients there are”
So the program never ends. Congratulations. You’ve actually managed to shift the burden even more on young people while exempting older folks from paying into the system.
You’ve actually managed to make social security worse! Wow. I didn’t even think that was possible.
The reality is this - people retiring have more assets then those starting out. Social security robs people when they are poor and young to pay for those who are wealthy and don’t need the benefits. This is wrong.
“Are you the same now as you were at 22?”
LOL, good point! No I’m not. At 22 I was finishing up three years in the Army of which one was spent in the tropical paradise Nam. Subsequently, I enrolled in college and even graduated! Actually, at 22 I had not spent much, probably no time, thinking about fiscal and economic issues. And, having graduated from high school in 1964 I was right in the middle of the social issues of the late 50’s and the 60’s. interesting times which like most of my generation formed my political and social perspective which was and still is of the conservative persuasion :)
A "buy-out" is not a benefit. It is a way to lower the number of recipients so that the overall burden to younger generations is reduced. This "buy-out" certainly won't be enough to replace projected benefits but must be large enough to entice sufficient numbers of boomers to partake to accomplish the end goal of lowering overall cost. Part of this enticement involves the knowledge that benefits will be redefined for all of those opting to remain in the system. Some boomers will opt to take the buyout, others will choose to remain. In both cases, cost will be reduced for those in the workforce. In both cases, Boomers have had to take a reduction in what was promised them. How can you possibly describe this as the boomers ripping younger generations off?
"So who gets left holding the bag? Young folks. Everyone who’s not a boomer. I congratulate you on managing to shaft everyone, while still guaranteeing that Boomers get every dime of social security."
I just pointed out to you that those boomers who opt out get ZERO social security. That's certainly not "every dime". In addition, those boomers who remain in the system will have to accept whatever social security benefits result from it's restructuring, certainly less than they were expecting, and once again, not "every dime". They are thus holding their part of this "bag" you speak of. You seem to want them to hold it entirely. It's a shit bag to be sure, but everyone has a part to play in getting rid of it, not just the boomers. They are getting to choose between two less shitty bags while one of your bags actually has candy in it.
"Those in it now would have your system - those entering into it would be exempt."
Won't work. Those at the youngest end still will need THEIR benefits for a forty year period after THEY stop working. This "die-off" time has to be financed by someone.
The program ends for those twenty years from retirement. They cannot receive benefits and must fund their own retirement but at least they have advance notice and they own their retirement and are not at the mercy of the government. Your line about older people not paying into the system is absurd. They've paid into the system their entire working lives, many more years than the someone younger is capable of.
"The reality is this - people retiring have more assets then those starting out. Social security robs people when they are poor and young to pay for those who are wealthy and don’t need the benefits. This is wrong"
This is what Obama would say.
You stop theft by stopping theft. Not by setting it up so that the theft continues.
If the people receiving benefits want them to continue, then they should continue financing them.
“This “die-off” time has to be financed by someone.”
Let it be boomers. We don’t have the money collectively, to pay for it. You can confiscate all you like, but the more you confiscate, the less people will pay.
Chickens. Coming. Home. To. Roost.
“You seem to want them to hold it entirely.”
Not so. I gave you your exact plan while exempting those 18 and younger frome every paying the system. This means people like me pay to support all the boomers, and when it comes to ‘our turn’, that there’s simply no one left to pay.
I’m very willing to take the hit - but only for a plan that ends the theft. For this plan that not only exempts boomers from paying into the system, and denies us the same choice? Terrible. Without ending the actual transfer? Even worse.
Give us a chance. We aren’t perfect, but we’re trying to fix things. :)
I end the theft by ultimately ending the plan. Your comment makes no sense as it pertains to what I've proposed.
"If the people receiving benefits want them to continue, then they should continue financing them."
With your help, they will and with their help you won't have to for as long and as much as they were forced into doing. That's teamwork and that's the only way this problem will ever be solved. Your age warfare model, once again very Obama-like, only serves to makes things worse, another Obama-like feature.
The plan is unsustainable. Either cuts now or harsher cuts later.
There will be only 1.5 of us for every one retired person. That is the problem. Either tax rates rise to 100 percent (which isn’t going to happen), or the system collapses.
Given that the average working person isn’t as wealthy as the average retired person - the first thing to go should be social security. It contributes nothing to improve America, and it poses a significant burden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.