"Total Boomer Luxury Communism"

[Greenbeard]

And your team has had numerous opportunities to fix it, and only made it even worse.

Again: FU.

The “problem” fixes itself in a few years, it’s automatic.

 

[1srelluc]

I do think this trend should be a wake up call to any Boomer who thinks they’re going to simply vote themselves more money from subsequent generations to avert the coming ~24% cut to their checks.

Truthfully, I'd hardly even notice a 24% reduction.....I chose wisely in getting ready for my retirement.

 

[Lisa558]

I do think this trend should be a wake up call to any Boomer who thinks they’re going to simply vote themselves more money from subsequent generations to avert the coming ~24% cut to their checks.

True. Your greedy generation will vote to reduce the $1500 a month Grandma gets in SS after paying into it for 40 years in order to give more free stuff to illegal aliens and keep SNAP payments high for sluts with five illegitimate children.

 

[Lisa558]

The “problem” fixes itself in a few years, it’s automatic.

How’s this for a solution: require able-bodied adults to get jobs, and with the money we save on welfare, we can keep paying the “high” SS payments of $1500 a month.

 

[Oddball]

The “problem” fixes itself in a few years, it’s automatic.

The fix is automatic....Yet we have do-gooder pinko punks like you coming along every day, telling us all how you're going to make everything better.

 

[Greenbeard]

True. Your greedy generation will vote to reduce the $1500 a month

No vote is needed, this is already the law. But yes, I suspect any Boomer communists trying to change the law to extract more wealth from struggling young families will face a rough electoral road.

 

[Oddball]

How’s this for a solution: require able-bodied adults to get jobs, and with the money we save on welfare, we can keep paying the “high” SS payments of $1500 a month.

How about this for a solution: call it all the towering ******* failure that it is, and allow everyone to keep 100% of what they earn to spend on what they want?

 

[Lisa558]

How about this for a solution: call it all the towering ******* failure that it is, and allow everyone to keep 100% of what they earn to spend on what they want?

I’d go for that.

 

[Lisa558]

No vote is needed, this is already the law. But yes, I suspect any Boomer communists trying to change the law to extract more wealth from struggling young families will face a rough electoral road.

What about the elderly struggling on a meager SS, and with no chance to earn money?

Young families can WORK for a living. The largest families are the poor ones, on welfare, because they know responsible middle class people will support their kids.

And as far as changing the law, didn’t you libtards change the law to give even more subsidies to people in order to afford life under the Unaffordable Care Act?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I've been seeing this phrase more often lately. I suspect it presages a new fault line that will become increasingly prominent in American politics over the next half decade. In the next year or so, the largest cuts ever to food assistance and health care for low-income people will take effect; in a few weeks young people behind on their student loans will start to see their wages garnished; the housing shortage will continue to keep a key slice of the American dream out of reach for many young families, child care will continue to be exorbitant and fertility rates will continue their downward creep, who knows if the moribund job market will resurrect. All of this will disproportionately fall on working age individuals and families.

Meanwhile, in 4-5 years we're likely to see the Boomers step forward hat-in-hand to ask--or perhaps more likely demand--that those families intervene to head off the coming automatic ~24% cut to Social Security checks (and the potential pare backs to Medicare benefits coming not too long after). When that moment and that debate come, do the increasingly combustible intergenerational tensions ignite?

What Is Total Boomer Luxury Communism?

Boomers (I was at the tail end of the boom) had a work ethic that allowed them to store up wealth, and to contribute to things like Social Security and retirement accounts.

If the next generation has less, that is because the next geneation does not have the same work ethic.

If the next generation is now taxed to make sure that social security fulfills its promise to boomers, that is because the social security "Trust Fund" was immediately raided to pay for things like "free" college for the next gen and Obamare for thirty-somethings who prefer to be artists and part time Door Dashers to getting the training and experience needed for a full time grownup job.

 

[Greenbeard]

Boomers (I was at the tail end of the boom) had a work ethic that allowed them to store up wealth, and to contribute to things like Social Security and retirement accounts.

Great! Tell her that.

What about the elderly struggling on a meager SS, and with no chance to earn money?

 

[Cassandro]

Means testing is ultimate "solution."

 

[dblack]

I do think this trend should be a wake up call to any Boomer who thinks they’re going to simply vote themselves more money from subsequent generations to avert the coming ~24% cut to their checks.

Hopefully. But the human capacity for delusion is powerful stuff.

 

[Greenbeard]

Means testing is ultimate "solution."

I could imagine some shuffling around of dollars, giving higher income households a larger haircut on their checks to mitigate some of the pain at the bottom of the ladder—but new funds beyond what’s currently scheduled to flow in through payroll taxes? Nah.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And you’ll get what you paid for. The automatic 24% reduction in Social Security checks that hits in a few years will ensure it.

Fine by me. I have zero plans to factor in Social Security for my retirement. It's a Ponzi Scheme with a paltry payout. George Bush had the right idea 20 years ago with his idea for private accounts, guaranteeing we would get back the money we paid in at a much higher interest rate, but you people demagogued it to death and killed the proposal because it makes people less dependent on the government.

If SS still exists when I retire, it will be a pleasant bonus.

 

[Lisa558]

I could imagine some shuffling around of dollars, giving higher income households a larger haircut on their checks to mitigate some of the pain at the bottom of the ladder—but new funds beyond what’s currently scheduled to flow in through payroll taxes? Nah.

Why not split the “pain”?

• HH with retirement income of $200,000 or more will get a 10% haircut on benefits paid via “means testing.”
• The start of social security will be moved forward a year to 63.
• The tax rate of SS payroll goes up by 1% - half paid by the employer and half by the employee.

THAT WOULD SOVE IT RIGHT THERE.

 

[Lisa558]

Fine by me. I have zero plans to factor in Social Security for my retirement. It's a Ponzi Scheme with a paltry payout. George Bush had the right idea 20 years ago with his idea for private accounts, guaranteeing we would get back the money we paid in at a much higher interest rate, but you people demagogued it to death and killed the proposal because it makes people less dependent on the government.

If SS still exists when I retire, it will be a pleasant bonus.

How old are you?

For me, personally, I would have been much better off without Social Security and just investing my contributions. I’ve run calculations, and my income from those savings would be almost TWICE what I get from SS now.

 

[g5000]

I thought Obamacare was going to lower premiums?

I thought Trump was going to replace Obamacare in 2017?

 

[g5000]

I've been seeing this phrase more often lately. I suspect it presages a new fault line that will become increasingly prominent in American politics over the next half decade. In the next year or so, the largest cuts ever to food assistance and health care for low-income people will take effect; in a few weeks young people behind on their student loans will start to see their wages garnished; the housing shortage will continue to keep a key slice of the American dream out of reach for many young families, child care will continue to be exorbitant and fertility rates will continue their downward creep, who knows if the moribund job market will resurrect. All of this will disproportionately fall on working age individuals and families.

Meanwhile, in 4-5 years we're likely to see the Boomers step forward hat-in-hand to ask--or perhaps more likely demand--that those families intervene to head off the coming automatic ~24% cut to Social Security checks (and the potential pare backs to Medicare benefits coming not too long after). When that moment and that debate come, do the increasingly combustible intergenerational tensions ignite?

What Is Total Boomer Luxury Communism?

.
Look, man. If we are going to take care of our oligarchs, we have no choice but to **** over the poor, mm-kay?

.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why not split the “pain”?

• HH with retirement income of $200,000 or more will get a 10% haircut on benefits paid via “means testing.”
• The start of social security will be moved forward a year to 63.
• The tax rate of SS payroll goes up by 1% - half paid by the employer and half by the employee.

THAT WOULD SOVE IT RIGHT THERE.

So higher taxes and benefit cuts for subsequent generations, and for a retired Boomer couple pulling in $150K . . . no consequences whatsoever?

As appealing as that “split” is, I’m going to have to go with the scheduled 24% benefit cut in a few years.