Meet the Greedy Grandparents

Slate ^ | Dec. 10, 2003 | Steve Chapman

[Cicero]

The Ponzi scheme coming home to roost. I have a clue for this idiot. Most "greedy grandparents" paid through the nose for social security for forty years and more, and got back far less than if they had put the money in a private retirement account.

It's not their fault. It's the fault of FDR and all the greedy politicians ever since who wanted to give the voters a chicken in every pot but didn't want to pay for it.

What we do now, I don't know, because most of the mischief was done by politicians who are now dead.

[rellimpank]

--and another thing , everytime I see one of the greedy geezers yapping about the high cost of drugs and the awful drug companies, I'd like to take them by the throat and point out to them that they are living on borrowed time, thanks to the miracles of modern chemistry--

[Joe Brower]

"The Ponzi scheme coming home to roost."

Yes. Sooner or later, the bill comes due. That time is rapidly approaching.

However, if you feel so sympathetic to those who paid into SS for so long and will get back less, imagine how my generation feels, who will have paid into it for over FIFTY years, and won't see a single dime.

[reed_inthe_wind]

Another wrinkle in the story is the meager fertility rates. Social security was originally based on assumptions that families would continue to have more children. More children means more workers and more GDP.

[ex-snook]

What nerve these geezers have living when they should be dead. Wonder what the expected age to die is today? Should the retirement age be 85 or 90 for today's workers so they don't drain their children [or in many of the cases someone else's children because they only have one child]. Besides I could pay for my own health insurance if only I did not have to pay school taxes.

[45Auto]

There is no question that Social Insecurity is going to go belly-up; its just a matter of time. The level of spending cannot be sustained. Congress has already been quietly "reforming" SS over the last two decades by raising the age for getting benefits at the same time increasing the amount of income subject to SS theft. I'm sure you have felt the crunch just as we all have. SS was put in place before I was born; I have been in favor of a major overhaul of the SS pie from the day I got my first paycheck.

So now, over my working lifetime, the RATs and the Vermin in government have stolen well over six figures from me. I'm sorry, but I want every damn penny back. And I won't settle for less. If I don't get it, there is going to be some major unpleasantness involving aspects of the 2nd Amendment, as is my birthright (and yours). I will settle for a check covering the full amount (with no income payable from it) right now. I will sign away away any future benefits IF the bastards stop taking any more SS withholding from now on. Think it will happen?

[Mr. Bird]

As a 30-something, I don't think the "geezers" are necessarily greedy. But I do think they are a bit selfish. But so am I. My selfishness manifests itself in my desire to obliterate social security quickly enough so I may have better prospects in my retirement.

I guess I would call the "geezers" selfish and foolish; anyone with elementary math skills knows that social security is highway robbery.

A solution? Anyone 50 and over is in. Collect your check at 67 (or whatever the current age is) and shut the hell up. I'm out. I'll keep paying the tax for a short while, but after that, I'm on my own. Make "social security" a welfare program for the needy, with a stigma that would make a whore blush.

[pogo101]

Most "greedy grandparents" paid through the nose for social security for forty years and more, and got back far less than if they had put the money in a private retirement account

Do you have any hard data to support that assertion? I seem to remember reading that the return is pretty darned good for those who live past their early 70s (at which point it's a break-even of sorts).

Whether or not you have hard supporting data, your statement doesn't justify the just-passed vampiric bloodsuck drug entitlement.

[45Auto]

Should the retirement age be 85 or 90 for today's workers...

That is exactly the way the vermin in Congress are going to "reform" SS. That coupled with increases in the SS "quota" every year. Soon, only those reaching the age of 85 will be eligible for "benefits"; that way, all the SS money stolen can simply be rolled-over into the general tax revenue pot and spent on other socialist projects. I wonder when the next revolution will start?

[Alberta's Child]

We weren't dubbed the Me Generation because we neglect our own needs, Junior. If politicians think the current geezers are greedy, they ain't seen nothin' yet.

I agree. I have enough faith in this country's pragmatic, nihilistic outlook and moral relativism to realize that Junior is never going to be burdened by the Me Generation -- if they start to cost him too much, he'll simply have them euthanized.

[vetvetdoug]

Ponzi Scheme is right and my generation is on the ground floor of the pyramid that is going to get screwed.

[45Auto]

In order not to take more out than I had stolen, I will settle for a check for the full amount taken from me over my working lifetime, as long as A) it is not subject to income tax and B) the bastards stop taking any more SS money from me. Other than that, I want every effing dime, or there's going to be trouble.

[Mr. Bird]

To fund all the obligations of the Social Security system, payroll taxes will have to more than double by 2040—on top of whatever it costs to buy all those prescription drugs

Now, I'm certainly not going to defend extending the ugly things, but someone somewhere recently did a more dynamic analysis of the financial burdens we are going to face, and revealed a relatively large elephant in the room: when the boomers start cashing their ss checks, they'll also be withdrawing trillions of taxable dollars from their 401(k)'s. Maybe that's how we fund the last generation of ss recipients....

[Alberta's Child]

I have a better solution:

Start a business, pay yourself a meager, subsistence-level salary, and take out most of your earnings in dividends. Dividends are not subject to FICA and Medicare payroll taxes, and under our current tax law they are taxed not as ordinary income, but at the reduced capital gains tax rate.

[Incorrigible]

[thoughtomator]

To fund all the obligations of the Social Security system, payroll taxes will have to more than double by 2040—on top of whatever it costs to buy all those prescription drugs. At that point, our children will realize the trick we've pulled and start to hate our guts.

Memo to the baby boomers from Gen X: We have known how you are bankrupting us for a long time already. We already hate your guts, you greedy sons of b-tches.

[MEGoody]

"Why do we keep indulging the grizzled ones?"

I would love to drop Social Security all together so I can invest my own money.

But we can't just drop it for those who are currently or near eligibility who don't have jobs that provide them with opportunities for pension plans or enough salary to save for their own retirement. We need to keep the 'promise' to them.

[KantianBurke]

I vaguely recall another poster writing that such a policy wouldn't work. Not sure what the gist was to be honest. Regardless, I'll be sure to vote for ANY candidate who favors abolishing SS.

[Maria S]

"Memo to the baby boomers from Gen X: We have known how you are bankrupting us for a long time already. We already hate your guts, you greedy sons of b-tches."

Gee! I'll bet your folks are reeeeally proud of how you turned out!