Baby Boomers must die...

[Drake Tungsten]

You'll receive part of your benefits. Carousel doesn't take place until you're 70...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by rah
I've paid in over 100 grand and received 0. GREEDY??????

Your money paid for your parents retirement. Your kids will be the one's paying for your retirement your protests nothwithstanding.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah
I've paid in over 100 grand and received 0. GREEDY??????
I'm willing to accept reduced payout, but after paying in for over 30 years, it's not too much to expect part of what we were promised. The younger generation that HASN"T paid in squat that want's to punish us so they get what they're promised, seems considerably more greedy to me.

When you were in your 20s you had paid nothing, and by the time the current generation is in their 50s and 60s they'll have paid twice as much as you.

It's not their fault they can see the future more clearly than you could.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MRT144
one such tweak is upping the age to receive SS slightly beyond life expectancy.

Do you really want to deal with 80 year olds driving to work during your rush hour commute?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by rah

This neglects just how much we've already paid in, knowing that we're just going to get a small percentage of it back. The true crime of an earlier generation that bilked us. Who do you think financed the original surplus? It wasn't our parents.

But yes I found it amusing. I don't blame the boomers, I blame the gutless politicians that could have tweaked the programs decades ago to avert the crisis that everyone knew was coming even back then. Don't blame those that have paid over 100 grand into it and will probably get very little back.

Actually, in terms of effect, your wrong. Yes, older generations have got more than baby boomers will (well, not in the UK - in the UK 2000 was the time to retire to get the absolute most in state retirement benefits), but that misses the issue. As the name implies, there are a lot of baby boomers to pay the pensions of the elderly. However there aren't as many of the next generation, meaning the effect will be felt far more.

Also, I don't know what you mean about getting little out, Social Security still pays out a vast amount, and will do for the foreseable future. What is "very little back", as it seems to me the baby boomers will get plenty.

I admit I don't know the US system too well, but in the UK system, the people currently retiring will get the most out of anyone, and the people retiring in 30 years will get less than half this amount, in addition to having to work extra years. Yet the generation retiring in 30 years, the one getting half the benefits, will pay in a far higher percentage of their income.

Couple this with house-price rises in the UK, where people who own houses (usually older people) have seen the value of their single house rise by more than the average wage, leaves them being very, very wealthy indeed. This has also meant it's virtually impossible for anyone under the age of around 35 to buy a house, as prices have gone so far. You all needed 2.5-3x annual income mortgages, whereas my generation need 6-8x. Once you take the fact that people, especially young people, are now spending a far higher proportion of their income on housing (which benefits the older generation through house prices), and will spend a far higher proportion on your pensions, than you did on your housing or your parents pensions, then you see why it starts to get unfair.

Originally posted by rah
I just have to laugh. A lot of the people making the most noise about it are in their mid 20's and have paid almost nothing into the plan and complaining about how little they'll get back. WHAT A JOKE.
We don't hate our children. They hate us.

The point is, the way policy is set at the moment, we will pay a lot in (far more as a percentage of our income than the baby boomers) yet get nothing out of it, as it won't exist when we retire. It's the issue of changing from a Pay-As-You-Go to a part-funded system - it means one generation has to pay twice, once for your pension, and once for our own.

We care about the fact we will be paying into it, as you guys draw the benefit, but that we won't get the benefit as it's not sustainable at current levels. It's quite simple that each generation should pay the same percentage in and their parents generation should draw that much out, perhaps with it winding down a bit towards a part-funded system. However the current retirees don't accept that, so want to take out as much as they put in, not as much as we're able to put in (being that there are far fewer of us compared to the number of you than there were when your elder generation was retiring). Which is why we have the issue.

In the UK, the age of retirement was set at 65 when someone at 65 was expected to live 10 more years. Now they're expected to live 16 more years, combined with the inverse demographical pyramid, and we have a workersensioners ration that has changed from being 3:1 to what will be 2:1 around 2020. You expect us to pay 150% of what you paid in, while accepting that we'll get half the benefits out of it?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Dauphin



When you were in your 20s you had paid nothing, and by the time the current generation is in their 50s and 60s they'll have paid twice as much as you.

It's not their fault they can see the future more clearly than you could.

QFT

[rah]

We saw the future, but the politicians ignored it. You can't blame us all for the sins of a few.

And I'll still be paying in for over 10 more years before I see a dime. And they'll probably bump the age before I get there and I'll be too young to be grandfathered in.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah

This neglects just how much we've already paid in, knowing that we're just going to get a small percentage of it back

Errr...no.

While some individuals may have paid in more than they're getting back, the boomer generation as a whole has not even close to funded its projected SS benefits with its contributions.

[rah]

Not as a whole, but I was specifically mentioning ME personally. I can guarentee that I'll only see a small percentage. And I'll bet that most of they youngsters that are complaining aren't doing it for their generation, they're complaining about it for themselves.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Do you really want to deal with 80 year olds driving to work during your rush hour commute?

The solution is actually a solution to multiple problems
Old people staying in jobs means less jobs --->
Jobs are created in the mass transit industry --->
Old people use mass transit instead of running people off the road (happened to me by an old woman before) --->
Younger people can still get employed

[KrazyHorse]

We should employ old people in televised gladiatorial combats (to the death).

We reverse the drain upon the economy and turn it into a benefit.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's a great idea.

[KrazyHorse]

Or even simpler, we could change NFL rules so that all offensive and defensive linemen must be 70 years old or more.

[Dinner]

I have a better solution. Let in massive numbers of Eastern European and Latin American immigrants. With all these new young workers paying taxes it won't matter that the babyboomers didn't have enough kids to support them in their old age.

[KrazyHorse]

**** that. They'll drag down the standard of living with their willingness to work long hours for low pay.

I say that only lazy Euros be allowed to immigrate.