The Baby Boomer Bust

[alan1]

The Baby Boomer Bust​

What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.

The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.

There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.

What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?

 

[Tank]

In 20 years Amexica will be a third world country

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Baby Boomer Bust​

What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.

The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.

There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.

What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?

"The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into....Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back."

I get it, Mounty....but what will be the view of the folks you write about, when they consider the possibility of losing it all?



1. Entitlements are ‘mandatory ‘ spending elements of the federal budget. They are allowed to grow automatically, without time limits or fiduciary oversight. Congress gives entitlements the first claim over federal revenues. Following this, discretionary spending is determined. “Discretionary spending accounted for 35.2% of total outlays in 2009,… In 1962, discretionary spending accounted for 47.2% of total outlays and was the largest component of federal spending until the mid-1970s.” http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34424_20100222.pdf

2. FDR, August 14, 1935, on signing the Social Security Act: “We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age,…”

a. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

b. “Of 31 million people 55-64 61.9% are in the work force. Of 18 million people 65-74 23% are in the work force.” Compare to France, where only 50% work past fifty. How many people in the United States are over 50 years old in the workplace? I think this article has a typo: http://tr.im/kswp.

3. The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan.

4. FDR, master politician, sculpted the program so it could not be whittled down by economic measures: he called the payroll taxes ‘contributions’…”We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick

a. The implied promise was that one’s ‘contributions’ belonged to him or her, and SS was not simply a tax-funded program that could be cut…thus the designation of a Social Security Trust Fund. Of course that changed in 1983, and since then the funds have been used as general revenue.

5. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security Online

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

 

[Dragon]

I knew someone would be along sooner or later to say something about entitlement programs, as if the problems of boomer retirement affected only that, as if this were some unique characteristic of government retirement programs instead of a general phenomenon impacting ALL retirement, no matter HOW it's funded.

The key lies in the worker/retiree ratio and also in worker productivity. The fewer workers are supporting each retiree, the harder it is for those working; on the other hand, the higher the worker productivity (IF workers are paid in proportion to their productivity, which unfortunately isn't the case at this time), the easier the task becomes.

This is true whether retirees are supported by government programs, private pensions, their own savings, or their families. The mechanics differ, but the effect ends up the same. So the proper conclusion is NOT that we can't afford Social Security. The proper conclusion is that we can't afford underpaid workers. Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine.

 

[alan1]

The Baby Boomer Bust​

What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.

The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.

There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.

What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?

"The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into....Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back."

I get it, Mounty....but what will be the view of the folks you write about, when they consider the possibility of losing it all?



1. Entitlements are ‘mandatory ‘ spending elements of the federal budget. They are allowed to grow automatically, without time limits or fiduciary oversight. Congress gives entitlements the first claim over federal revenues. Following this, discretionary spending is determined. “Discretionary spending accounted for 35.2% of total outlays in 2009,… In 1962, discretionary spending accounted for 47.2% of total outlays and was the largest component of federal spending until the mid-1970s.” http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34424_20100222.pdf

2. FDR, August 14, 1935, on signing the Social Security Act: “We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age,…”

a. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

b. “Of 31 million people 55-64 61.9% are in the work force. Of 18 million people 65-74 23% are in the work force.” Compare to France, where only 50% work past fifty. How many people in the United States are over 50 years old in the workplace? I think this article has a typo: http://tr.im/kswp.

3. The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan.

4. FDR, master politician, sculpted the program so it could not be whittled down by economic measures: he called the payroll taxes ‘contributions’…”We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick

a. The implied promise was that one’s ‘contributions’ belonged to him or her, and SS was not simply a tax-funded program that could be cut…thus the designation of a Social Security Trust Fund. Of course that changed in 1983, and since then the funds have been used as general revenue.

5. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security Online

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

Ms Chic, I don't think I have the answer to that question.

All the facts you cite show that the SS program will eventually fail and I do believe that it is my generation (baby boomers) that will bring about that collapse.

You wrote,

5. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

For SS to remain solvent over the long term it is required that there be more contributors than collectors. This is similar to a ponzi scheme, and is unsustainable over time. Specifically, on point 5, even the early death of some contributors will not make the program solvent.
I wrote another treatise concerning SS and the black people, and how SS is actually discriminatory to blacks based upon actuarial tables.

Black Men Don’t Get Social Security​

Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.

For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.

For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average predicted life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.

The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.

That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 12.4% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it.

Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2007 — Infoplease.com

 

[Trajan]

The Baby Boomer Bust​

What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.

The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.

There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.

What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?

"The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into....Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back."

I get it, Mounty....but what will be the view of the folks you write about, when they consider the possibility of losing it all?

you've got to the nub of it, in short- the government sold them (us) a bill of goods, pig in the poke, whatever applicable cliche along those lines we can assign.

On one hand, (as a boomer myself in his 50's who will still be working for another decade minus changes NOW); they are right, they paid, they should get what the system (see: gubermint) promised them, but we both know and deep down they too, know its a fantasy.

Heres the thing, you wanna talk about taxes?

Get ready, because means testing in spades is on the horizon.

My SS payments will be discounted, I won't get the max ( as it is determined now) they will tell me ( us) you have personal retirement assets that can fund your needs in lieu of the maximum, redistribution speak for you were either or (some of the following) - to smart, planned to well, or to ‘affluent’ meaning you started head of others in the game of life that you do not require your rightful share as prescripted and promised here to fore by the prgm., so you will be docked, and if you say a word, you will be branded as selfish, ( the pols will use selective income level in retirement as obama does now ala 200k/250k), it will not be palliative.

And, medically, aside form rationing etc. we, those that are in the bracket of class warfare that will be created so as to target them for means test leveling down, will be expected and basically forced to foot way more of their own medical costs in retirement than they would have , say now or 20 years ago on a comparative basis.

My blurb as to taxes earlier means this- this will be the greatest transfer of tax $$, (which really is supposed to be a form of insurance btw ) ever , the joke being, you and your employer who paid for roughly 45 years, 12.4% and the 2.9% will be taxed retroactively, on a scale that will beggar the mind.

Wanna talk about a walls t. rip-off, or banks? Mere piker’s, this retroactive transfer payments levy will amount to many trillions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In 20 years Amexica will be a third world country​

 

[alan1]

I knew someone would be along sooner or later to say something about entitlement programs, as if the problems of boomer retirement affected only that, as if this were some unique characteristic of government retirement programs instead of a general phenomenon impacting ALL retirement, no matter HOW it's funded.

The key lies in the worker/retiree ratio and also in worker productivity. The fewer workers are supporting each retiree, the harder it is for those working; on the other hand, the higher the worker productivity (IF workers are paid in proportion to their productivity, which unfortunately isn't the case at this time), the easier the task becomes.

This is true whether retirees are supported by government programs, private pensions, their own savings, or their families. The mechanics differ, but the effect ends up the same. So the proper conclusion is NOT that we can't afford Social Security. The proper conclusion is that we can't afford underpaid workers. Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine.

I understand your point, Dragon, but I think you are mistaken.
I'm not sure why you picked 1980 as your baseline, let me pick 1790 as mine.

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture. The reason it now only takes 3% as opposed to the 90% is because of what you say, efficiency and productivity of the workforce. Following your logic, those 3% of farmers today should make the equivalent earnings of the 90% of 1790 agricultural labor force (They'd be a mighty damn wealthy 3% of the country). Raising the total wages of the 3% to reflect the total wages of the 90% of the past is not a viable solution.

 

[alan1]

you've got to the nub of it, in short- the government sold them (us) a bill of goods, pig in the poke, whatever applicable cliche along those lines we can assign.

On one hand, (as a boomer myself in his 50's who will still be working for another decade minus changes NOW); they are right, they paid, they should get what the system (see: gubermint) promised them, but we both know and deep down they too, know its a fantasy.

Heres the thing, you wanna talk about taxes?

Get ready, because means testing in spades is on the horizon.

My SS payments will be discounted, I won't get the max ( as it is determined now) they will tell me ( us) you have personal retirement assets that can fund your needs in lieu of the maximum, redistribution speak for you were either or (some of the following) - to smart, planned to well, or to ‘affluent’ meaning you started head of others in the game of life that you do not require your rightful share as prescripted and promised here to fore by the prgm., so you will be docked, and if you say a word, you will be branded as selfish, ( the pols will use selective income level in retirement as obama does now ala 200k/250k), it will not be palliative.

And, medically, aside form rationing etc. we, those that are in the bracket of class warfare that will be created so as to target them for means test leveling down, will be expected and basically forced to foot way more of their own medical costs in retirement than they would have , say now or 20 years ago on a comparative basis.

My blurb as to taxes earlier means this- this will be the greatest transfer of tax $$, (which really is supposed to be a form of insurance btw ) ever , the joke being, you and your employer who paid for roughly 45 years, 12.4% and the 2.9% will be taxed retroactively, on a scale that will beggar the mind.

Wanna talk about a walls t. rip-off, or banks? Mere piker’s, this retroactive transfer payments levy will amount to many trillions.

I see "means testing" as the potential solution that the government offers.
It goes like this,

We (the government) took 12.4% of your income for your entire working life, BUT, since you still managed to set aside (save) for yourself, we are now screwing you and you get none of it back because you were responsible.

 

[Trajan]

I knew someone would be along sooner or later to say something about entitlement programs, as if the problems of boomer retirement affected only that, as if this were some unique characteristic of government retirement programs instead of a general phenomenon impacting ALL retirement, no matter HOW it's funded.

The key lies in the worker/retiree ratio and also in worker productivity. The fewer workers are supporting each retiree, the harder it is for those working; on the other hand, the higher the worker productivity (IF workers are paid in proportion to their productivity, which unfortunately isn't the case at this time), the easier the task becomes.

This is true whether retirees are supported by government programs, private pensions, their own savings, or their families. The mechanics differ, but the effect ends up the same. So the proper conclusion is NOT that we can't afford Social Security. The proper conclusion is that we can't afford underpaid workers. Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine.

you've contradicted yourself, more than a few times.

and this?

Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine

this would mean that FICA collections would go up for the gov. , how is that the answer? and in addition, fewer workers would be employed down stream or more temps etc. etc.....and COSTS for those products would be raised if not, You are pushing on a balloon.

 

[Trajan]

you've got to the nub of it, in short- the government sold them (us) a bill of goods, pig in the poke, whatever applicable cliche along those lines we can assign.

On one hand, (as a boomer myself in his 50's who will still be working for another decade minus changes NOW); they are right, they paid, they should get what the system (see: gubermint) promised them, but we both know and deep down they too, know its a fantasy.

Heres the thing, you wanna talk about taxes?

Get ready, because means testing in spades is on the horizon.

My SS payments will be discounted, I won't get the max ( as it is determined now) they will tell me ( us) you have personal retirement assets that can fund your needs in lieu of the maximum, redistribution speak for you were either or (some of the following) - to smart, planned to well, or to ‘affluent’ meaning you started head of others in the game of life that you do not require your rightful share as prescripted and promised here to fore by the prgm., so you will be docked, and if you say a word, you will be branded as selfish, ( the pols will use selective income level in retirement as obama does now ala 200k/250k), it will not be palliative.

And, medically, aside form rationing etc. we, those that are in the bracket of class warfare that will be created so as to target them for means test leveling down, will be expected and basically forced to foot way more of their own medical costs in retirement than they would have , say now or 20 years ago on a comparative basis.

My blurb as to taxes earlier means this- this will be the greatest transfer of tax $$, (which really is supposed to be a form of insurance btw ) ever , the joke being, you and your employer who paid for roughly 45 years, 12.4% and the 2.9% will be taxed retroactively, on a scale that will beggar the mind.

Wanna talk about a walls t. rip-off, or banks? Mere piker’s, this retroactive transfer payments levy will amount to many trillions.

I see "means testing" as the potential solution that the government offers.
It goes like this,

We (the government) took 12.4% of your income for your entire working life, BUT, since you still managed to set aside (save) for yourself, we are now screwing you and you get none of it back because you were responsible.

thats about the size of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Baby Boomer Bust​

What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.

The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.

There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.

What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?

"The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into....Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back."

I get it, Mounty....but what will be the view of the folks you write about, when they consider the possibility of losing it all?

you've got to the nub of it, in short- the government sold them (us) a bill of goods, pig in the poke, whatever applicable cliche along those lines we can assign.

On one hand, (as a boomer myself in his 50's who will still be working for another decade minus changes NOW); they are right, they paid, they should get what the system (see: gubermint) promised them, but we both know and deep down they too, know its a fantasy.

Heres the thing, you wanna talk about taxes?

Get ready, because means testing in spades is on the horizon.

My SS payments will be discounted, I won't get the max ( as it is determined now) they will tell me ( us) you have personal retirement assets that can fund your needs in lieu of the maximum, redistribution speak for you were either or (some of the following) - to smart, planned to well, or to ‘affluent’ meaning you started head of others in the game of life that you do not require your rightful share as prescripted and promised here to fore by the prgm., so you will be docked, and if you say a word, you will be branded as selfish, ( the pols will use selective income level in retirement as obama does now ala 200k/250k), it will not be palliative.

And, medically, aside form rationing etc. we, those that are in the bracket of class warfare that will be created so as to target them for means test leveling down, will be expected and basically forced to foot way more of their own medical costs in retirement than they would have , say now or 20 years ago on a comparative basis.

My blurb as to taxes earlier means this- this will be the greatest transfer of tax $$, (which really is supposed to be a form of insurance btw ) ever , the joke being, you and your employer who paid for roughly 45 years, 12.4% and the 2.9% will be taxed retroactively, on a scale that will beggar the mind.

Wanna talk about a walls t. rip-off, or banks? Mere piker’s, this retroactive transfer payments levy will amount to many trillions.

1. Because of the increases in longevity, no one (currently) gets cheated on either SS or Medicare: folks collect more than they put in.
BTW...I believe that SS benefits are currently taxed at 85%.

a. ◦between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
◦
more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
Benefits Planner: Taxes and your Social Security benefits

2. A possible answer, as I see it, would be private accounts...with societal changes, such as replacing sex ed in school with course based on the importance of planning for the future....certainly more within government's purview.

a. The more excuses society makes for folks who don't, the more it is encouraged. A minimal governmental safety net provided, and, eventually, it would become clear which is the more profitable path.

b. Charitable deductions should be encouraged, not the course plotted by Liberal/Progressive elites. One facet of American exceptionalism is that Americans are the most generous people on earth.

3. Mounty makes an excellent point about black Americans hardly benefitting from SS...I have seen the statistics on black infant deaths....I wonder if this stats were removed, would black longevity still lag?

a. "One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates."
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[9thIDdoc]

The actual reason there is a precieved problem makeing SSI payments is that the government told itself it was OK to steal SSI funds to waste on pork and other forms of corruption. SSI is a National debt that should serviced before most others. We're still giving foreign aid. Pay the deBt to those who have funded our Country FIRST.

P.S. I find whining about my still being alive highly offensive. If you think that "living too long" is a problem, feel free to shoot yourself.

 

[alan1]

3. Mounty makes an excellent point about black Americans hardly benefitting from SS...I have seen the statistics on black infant deaths....I wonder if this stats were removed, would black longevity still lag?

Well, I did use an "average" in my post.

I suspect that if infant mortality was removed that black longevity would still lag.
Partly because of violent crime and partly because of health issues.
It's still a no win for them, you and I.

Despite the craptastic performance of the stock market the past few years and despite the fact that my personal contributions to said stock market are well below the 12.4% SS I (and my employer) have been forced to partake in, it is still my largest investment.

 

[bucs90]

We'll all be forced to be responsible for ourselves, accountable for our own safety and shelter, and basically personal responsibility will become the most valuable asset in the world.

Scary thought for left wingers.

 

[Dragon]

you've contradicted yourself, more than a few times.

Point those times out, please.

Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine

this would mean that FICA collections would go up for the gov. , how is that the answer?

That's not all it would do. However, w/r/t Social Security, how is it NOT the answer? The problem is a projected shortfall of FICA collections against payouts to retired beneficiaries. If FICA collections are increased sufficiently, would that not eliminate the shortfall?

But as I said, that's not all it would do. It would also boost the economy dramatically, since it would increase consumer demand, which would promote investment and end the situation we have now in which corporations are sitting on mountains of cash that they have no reason to invest. A more productive economy is one that can more easily afford a larger population of non-working retired people, regardless of how they are being supported. Retired people on Social Security would have their checks paid out of increased tax revenues; retired people on private pensions would have their benefits paid by companies that are doing better and can more easily afford it; retired people living on their own savings and investments would see those investments doing better (on the average); families who are helping support retired people would do so out of increased earnings.

and in addition, fewer workers would be employed down stream or more temps etc. etc

No, that's untrue. Because of the increased consumer demand resulting from higher wages, we would have more investment, more production, more demand for labor, a tighter labor market, and hence decreased ability for companies to get away with that kind of thing. That's how it worked in the 1940s-1970s. Increased use of temps, etc. actually coincided with the decline in real wages compared to productivity.

....and COSTS for those products would be raised if not, You are pushing on a balloon.

While it's likely that costs would increase somewhat as a result of the increased demand, never in history have costs increased so much in response to increased labor costs that the gains for workers were outweighed by the price hikes. If everyone gets a 100% pay increase while prices increase 25%, which is probably in the ballpark, that amounts to a net 75% raise.

Mind you, that would not eliminate the problem of a big retiree generation; the pig still has to work its way through the python. But there's no reason to believe we can't afford to support them. What we can't afford, perhaps, is to support them while at the same time encouraging the richest people to maximize their personal gains. But then, we can't afford that last anyway. If it goes on much longer, we will face revolution.

Mountain Man: One has to consider productivity versus wages for the economy as a whole, not for a single sliver of it. Also, if you consider the market value of farm produce today versus in the labor-intensive past, I think you will find that the increase in wages would not need to be as large as you were suggesting, even considering farm work in isolation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We'll all be forced to be responsible for ourselves, accountable for our own safety and shelter, and basically personal responsibility will become the most valuable asset in the world.

Scary thought for left wingers.

You'd best sit down when you read this....Liberals will still be better off materially...and "materially" is a very important caveat...as Liberals both earn more than conservatives, and give far less in charity than conservatives.
And...they have far fewer children, as well.

Now, don't read this as more 'victimology'....because I truly believe that spiritual wealth more desirable than material wealth.

1. "When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."
Newsvine - Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

And...data from the same book, "Who Really Cares?," ...

2. "Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)"
Scrooge Was A Liberal - HUMAN EVENTS

Frightening to some, the religious have more children...
3. "A number of demographers, journalists, and sociologists have noted a strong correlation between religious values and fertility rates. The more frequent the church attendance, the higher the birthrate. "White fundamentalist Protestants" who attend services weekly show a fertility rate 27 percent higher than the national average. Mormons show twice the national birth rate."
A Counter Trend


So, if you thought that the end of entitlements would be a "Scary thought for left wingers," I'm not so sure.

You know what they say, you only find justice in the dictionary and the cemetary.

 

[alan1]

Mountain Man: One has to consider productivity versus wages for the economy as a whole, not for a single sliver of it. Also, if you consider the market value of farm produce today versus in the labor-intensive past, I think you will find that the increase in wages would not need to be as large as you were suggesting, even considering farm work in isolation.

It was you that suggested the increased wages tied to productivity increase, not I.
I merely pointed out the failed logic of your assertion. Farming was a good example for me to use since there have been many efficiencies and productivity gains in that area.

 

[Dragon]

It was you that suggested the increased wages tied to productivity increase, not I.
I merely pointed out the failed logic of your assertion.

No, you attempted to do so. I was pointing out why you failed: because farming should not be considered in isolation, and because you did not properly evaluate it in terms of the market value of farm produce, which is a better indication of net productivity than volume.

 

[alan1]

It was you that suggested the increased wages tied to productivity increase, not I.
I merely pointed out the failed logic of your assertion.

No, you attempted to do so. I was pointing out why you failed: because farming should not be considered in isolation, and because you did not properly evaluate it in terms of the market value of farm produce, which is a better indication of net productivity than volume.

From you,

The proper conclusion is that we can't afford underpaid workers. Raise everyone's wages across the board to reflect the growth in productivity since 1980, and everything will be fine.

You selected 1980 as your base line. I selected 1790 as my baseline to show the absurdity of your position. It just so happens that in 1790 90% of the workforce was in agriculture. In 2170, your 1980 baseline will be just as ridiculous as my 1790 baseline is today. It's not about the actual industry, it's about the concept that you are espousing.