Posted on 01/17/2005 12:44:45 AM PST by kattracks
THE AARP's new ad cam paign strips the debate over Social Security re form down to its core tension: One generation of future retirees vs. the next.The Social Security debate has always threatened to devolve into an intergenerational feud — for the problem is this: In two decades, if Social Security isn't overhauled, a shrinking class of young and middle-aged workers will have to pay higher taxes to support a growing class of retired baby boomers.
[snip]
This month, the AARP — the lobbying group for Americans over 50 — came out against President Bush's plan to allow workers to invest some Social Security taxes in personal accounts. The group ran a full-page ad in 60 newspapers to make this point: "If we feel like gambling, we'll play the slots."
[snip]
The AARP lobbyists haven't even seen Bush's formal proposals yet — and they're summarily rejecting them. This may be a blunder. First: The AARP may be wrong about the boomers. Senior citizens broke for Bush in the '04 election — 53 percent to 46 percent — despite Bush's emphasis on entitlement reform. An even greater percentage of younger seniors — those between 60 and 65 — voted Bush. If boomers follow their lead as they age, they'll prove the AARP got a signature issue wrong — and destroy the AARP's political clout.
Boomers should be eager to revisit Social Security with Bush — to see if they can take advantage of the improvements in stock-market investing and retirement-risk modeling that have taken place over the past 20 years.
[snip]
If some boomers want to let their retirement-insurance program collapse onto itself within their lifetimes, their children had better vote for representatives who will let them put more of their money away while they still can.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I think all caps is a bit much. Having said that, I agree 100% with what you posted. I'll take the money I have paid in, in a lump sum, and take much better care of it than the fed government.
I'm with you. Just give us back everything we've paid in. Then shut it down, let the kids invest.
Then call it what it is: welfare.
Not only is it welfare, but these same elderly ss recipients were the first to condemn people who were on welfare prior to its reform.
First of all, cut out the ALL CAPS.
Second, Leslie Stahl needs to redo her math. I just checked the form I receive every year from the social security administration. My employers and I have paid in over $142K in contributions. By the time I retire, we will have paid in enough to cover the 'benefits' for 10 years. And, that doesn't include 'interest'. Now if you wish to include interest, fine, I'll take the stock market rate of return.
The problem is, it's not the boomers who set it up. The people who devise this rathole are mostly dead and gone by now.
you are forgetting the obvious-the last 20 years the fica taxes have kept on rising on young workers, but for the first 50 years the fica taxes were a pittance. also when the elderly realized they were getting a great windfall they created lobbying groups like AARP and became bloc voters to maintain the status quo (or increase it with generous colas etc.)
as to your math-duh-why do you think we call it a PONZI scheme?
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
the current recipients and those before them may have contributed something, but not enough to justify their ss checks and certainly far less than current taxpayers pay. you are also assuming that all welfare recipients never paid taxes.
the key question-
SHOULD PEOPLE ON SS BE GETTING MORE THAN THEY PAID IN?
yes or no
the current recipients and those before them may have contributed something, but not enough to justify their ss checks and certainly far less than current taxpayers pay. you are also assuming that all welfare recipients never paid taxes.
the key question-
SHOULD PEOPLE ON SS BE GETTING MORE THAN THEY PAID IN?
yes or no
I don't set policy, so I cannot say.
But you also have the inflation effect to deal with. It's not a simple fact of giving them back the same number of "dollars" that they contributed. Those "dollars" won't buy squat compared to what they would buy 40 years ago.
Shame on me? I don't think so. Shame on those who propagate this sham.
Oh, I know that. It's the do-gooder New Dealers who instituted this fraud. But it's the fault of every successive generation of politician who kept lying to gullible Americans until the populace came to believe in this pyramid as an "entitlement."
As I said, I don't blame the Baby Boomers for being born when they were. But let's accept the reality: when that pig in the python group of 76 million Boomers begins to retire, the rest of us are going to feel the crush.
that's why on 60min. l.stahls expose they considered interest in their calculation that current recipients paid only enough in fica to collect for THREE years. every cent above that is welfare stolen from young people who are paying much higher rates of fica than the elderly ss recipients ever did.
Americans were sold a bill of goods that somewhat defies natural law.
Extended families used to be the rule. Now, people own their own homes when they are married. (or try to). Used to be that scenes like "The Waltons" actually existed and were quite common.
"Retirement" is a fairly recent phenomena too.
I hope I never "retire". I would always try to find something to keep me busy and bring in a few bucks.
So this is not just an issue of money. It is also an issue of social dynamics.
Hey, bud, my wife died five years ago yesterday. At 41 years old. She never got a dime. My mom died the year she turned 65. My dad died at 52.
I personally doubt I will live till I'm 65, I'm 50 now.
So I suggest you find some creative solutions to the problem instead of just trying to shift the blame.
"also when the elderly realized they were getting a great windfall they created lobbying groups like AARP and became bloc voters to maintain the status quo (or increase it with generous colas etc.)'
It's not a 'great windfall'. Go back and read my post and explain to me why I'm getting a 'great windfall'.
Again, not directed at you personally...you can't help when you were born.
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.