Old Pharts are crushing us :-(

[73ss454]

Ziggy, exactly, I do not accept getting screwed. That hits the nail on the head alright. I would hope that you also don't accept it.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 Ziggy, exactly, I do not accept getting screwed. That hits the nail on the head alright. I would hope that you also don't accept it.

We really don't have a choice in the matter, we get to pay full price, then we get much lowered, if any, benefits. By the time the X'ers are in a position to do something it will be too late to do much. The Dems don't seem to willing or interested in changing the system other than raising taxes to pay for it. Bush offered something, but it was shot down and nothing else was proposed. Since Bush's proposal was the "first shot" I seriously doubt he thought it would pass unchanged, similar to the tax plan recently proposed. I think both ideas were thrown out to provide something to debate and work with, not as the perfect plan.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire We really don't have a choice in the matter, we get to pay full price, then we get much lowered, if any, benefits. By the time the X'ers are in a position to do something it will be too late to do much.

Welcome to the real world. Turns out all those 60+ year old Senators that DON'T pay into or get SS could care less............wonder what would happen if we had term and/or age limits in Congress??

Quote:

The Dems don't seem to willing or interested in changing the system other than raising taxes to pay for it.

NOONE is going to do ANYTHING about funding SS until the 11th hour. That's a certain way to end your political career...........

Quote:

Bush offered something, but it was shot down and nothing else was proposed. Since Bush's proposal was the "first shot" I seriously doubt he thought it would pass unchanged, similar to the tax plan recently proposed. I think both ideas were thrown out to provide something to debate and work with, not as the perfect plan.

Pretty much everything Bush has proposed has been shot down, no surprise. And before the Dems on here pound the table about Bush getting everything he wanted on the war, what has the DEMOCRATIC majority Congress done about cutting war spending,etc?? Crickets...........

[Khan]

Quote:

Welcome to the real world. Turns out all those 60+ year old Senators that DON'T pay into or get SS could care less............wonder what would happen if we had term and/or age limits in Congress??

All senators (and reps) pay into SSA.

[Goonie]

I'm with 73ss454, hands down! I'm in in for ME, always have been, always will be. During all of my adult life, no one has been watching out for me, except for me. That's life, and I'm not complaining about it! As it applies to SS, I'm still watching out for me......and will continue to do so.

I don't know whether 73ss454 is an AARP member or not, but I am. I'm not in it for the discounts, I'm in for the lobbying power. It's amazing what a bunch of geezers and blue-hairs can accomplish, not because they're older, but because they've figured out how to band together as a united front to fight for what they (we) want. There's no reason why the younger generations couldn't do the same thing!

I fought all of my w*rking life for the benefit of myself as well as my fellow co-w*rkers and peers. Over the years I willingly gave up some of my benefits so that younger employees could gain better benefits. The general response from the younger ones was, "You should have given up more". At that point I realized that I should have given up NOTHING! I still hold that attitude, and I'm not foreseeing any change. I have no heirs, and thus I really have no vested interest in what happens to future generations. I don't relish the thought of anyone getting the short end of the stick, but I'm more adamant about not getting the short end of the stick myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonie Since the "Boomers" are pretty well content with the way SS is set up now, leave it "as is" for them. And since it seems that it's the "Gen X'ers" doing most of the complaining about the "Boomers" wanting to collect the SS that has been promised them, how about raising the SS tax on the "Gen X'ers" (and beyond), and extending the SS qualifying age for them. That way the "Boomers" get what they want, and the "Gen X'ers" get what they want. Therefore, it's a "Win-Win" situation! Right?

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy2bretired I paid in to SS, a little less than 40 credits, before I began working for the federal government at age 24. My husband paid in to SS for probably 20-25 years but died before collecting anything. Since I have a federal pension I don't believe I will be eligible to collect any of my husband's or my own SS....you young 'ens can have my share.

Not correct. Go to the SS site and read about WEP and GPO. Your benefits from your husband could be eliminated under GPO, but your own benefits can only be reduced under WEP.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Such strong words from Goonie and 73ss454!

Yet I can't help but point out that their positions, as well as many other folks in this country, suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. According to the SSA website, Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. That means what you paid in IS NOT what you get out.

What we're really talking about here is an ENTITLEMENT. Like any entitlement granted by the Government, it can be reduced or taken away. The fact that people have paid into the SS system through working is irrelevant, because most other government entitlement programs are funded through taxes which are also paid in through working. Thus, SS payments made by workers and their employers are really nothing more than an additional tax, with no guaranty of a refund when you retire.

[73ss454]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby Such strong words from Goonie and 73ss454! Yet I can't help but point out that their positions, as well as many other folks in this country, suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. According to the SSA website, Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. That means what you paid in IS NOT what you get out. What we're really talking about here is an ENTITLEMENT. Like any entitlement granted by the Government, it can be reduced or taken away. The fact that people have paid into the SS system through working is Iirrelevant, because most other government entitlement programs are funded through taxes which are also paid in through working. Thus, SS payments made by workers and their employers are really nothing more than an additional tax, with no guaranty of a refund when you retire.

No misunderstanding, I paid all my life and it's almost time to collect. I'm not going to lay down and give up what I feel is coming to me. They may take it away as you point out but I'll be yelling and screaming all the way.

I also don't think I'll ever get out what I paid in but I'll give it a shot.

I don't belong to AARP but they do lobby for us as Goonie points out. When you guys get to be around 49 look in the mail for your applications. Then join up and they'll fight for you when your time comes.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Isn't it wonderful what an unsustainable Ponzi scheme has done for intergenerational relations?

Well said Ziggy29... I am glad to see that at least a few others see this for what it really is... a giant Ponzi scheme. And of course in any Ponzi scheme, or any pyramid scheme for that matter, everyone at the top (in this case retirees) wants it, and everyone toward the bottom (younger workers) hate it. But at this point in time, the ones getting benifits out of it are about to vastly exceed those that are paying into it. So the whole Ponzi scheme is about to crumble, as it was destined to from the start. Perhaps hastened a bit due to the sheer numbers of baby boomers retiring. I completely understand that older workers and retirees want ALL of the benefits that they worked for. I also understand that I WAY do not want to pay into a system that in the future I am being told will have no benefit for me. In this battle, both sides are equally correct. And neither side is being altruistic about it. (Although I have never beleived in altruism anyway). With all of the various options and outcomes being bad, I like the idea of "sharing the pain" the best. That way Social security can eventually be phased out in such a way that is sensible.

[Lusitan]

Strong words from Goonie, indeed, but honest words; I respect that. I understand Goonie's point of view, although I don't agree with it. But it's refreshing to hear someone speaking honestly for the Boomers on this point. And Goonie's post does exactly that.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 No misunderstanding, I paid all my life and it's almost time to collect. I'm not going to lay down and give up what I feel is coming to me. They may take it away as you point out but I'll be yelling and screaming all the way.

That is a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, you just don't see it that way. Nevertheless, I agree with you in the fundamental unfairness of the situation. You don't want to be the one without a chair when the music stops. Well neither do I. So rather than focus on just what you want, why not consider what is best for the system as a whole? The legacy of Boomers could be that they SAVED the SS system, rather than milked it for everything it's worth. If you don't, then perhaps labeling Boomers as the "Me Generation" is well-deserved.

[73ss454]

Well, the music about to stop and I already have my chair. I have no interest in having a legacy of giving up any of my SS.

Sorry, but I've done my part as far as I'm concerned and I'm going to stay in the seat and collect.

I see your point but I don't agree. When the politicians stay out of our money I may feel differently.

IMHO your fighting the wrong fight. Your generation should figure out how to get the politicians to stay out of our money and stop asking us to give it up.

[happy2bretired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Not correct. Go to the SS site and read about WEP and GPO. Your benefits from your husband could be eliminated under GPO, but your own benefits can only be reduced under WEP.

Youbet...I don't have my 40 credits, so I think I'm out of luck. I do plan to visit SS when I turn 60 tho just to make sure.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 IMHO your fighting the wrong fight. Your generation should figure out how to get the politicians to stay out of our money and stop asking us to give it up.

It's the same fight. Boomers have never wanted to change the SS system because it would require a reduction in their benefits or increasing the age at which they could receive such benefits. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, why not help to change the system by demanding a phased in approach based on age that would spare your benefits (as a retiree), yet preserve some benefits for future generations? You might be screwing younger Boomers, but you'll still get yours. As a retiree, you have far more time than the average Gen Xer who is working hard to support a family and has little time/energy to devote to grass roots or organized politics.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby Such strong words from Goonie and 73ss454! Yet I can't help but point out that their positions, as well as many other folks in this country, suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. According to the SSA website, Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. That means what you paid in IS NOT what you get out. What we're really talking about here is an ENTITLEMENT. Like any entitlement granted by the Government, it can be reduced or taken away. The fact that people have paid into the SS system through working is irrelevant, because most other government entitlement programs are funded through taxes which are also paid in through working. Thus, SS payments made by workers and their employers are really nothing more than an additional tax, with no guaranty of a refund when you retire.

This is bunk. Merely a talking point or stalking horse to start negotiations.

Remember threads about how unfair it is for companies or governments to take away benefits promised?

No difference, so if you come after my SS, I am going after every possible "entitlement" that may at some point contribute to your life.

Not in our house!!!

Ha

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby You don't want to be the one without a chair when the music stops. Well neither do I. So rather than focus on just what you want, why not consider what is best for the system as a whole?

America is Balkanized. Any group that does not understand this is living a fantasy. The nature of politics in any non-homogeneous population is for groups to be sure that when the music stops, only the other guys are left standing. Politics is about power, and boomers have number power and $ power. People will always be shoving on us; we need to make that activity hazardous to their careers.

If AARP executives started acting for the good of all, rather than for aging Americans, IMO they should be turned out in favor of a group that understands their mission better.

Ha

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha If AARP executives started acting for the good of all, rather than for aging Americans, IMO they should be turned out in favor of a group that understands their mission better.

Agreed. So many of them and so many of their members talk about how much they love their grandkids, but it seems hollow when you think about how much they are content to financially screw them through bankrupt entitlement programs and the national debt.

I understand their interests need to be represented at the table when talk of "fixing" SS comes up, but their complete refusal to consider any reforms that would require their membership -- even if only the most affluent among them -- to share in ANY of the pain and sacrifice makes them an organization opposed to the common good, IMO.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Agreed. So many of them and so many of their members talk about how much they love their grandkids, but it seems hollow when you think about how much they are content to financially screw them through bankrupt entitlement programs and the national debt.

Exactly! Their response, of course, is that the future welfare of their grandkids isn't their problem, as that's not the mission of the AARP. Taking care of grandkids is their parents' responsibility.

Overall, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't promise benefits you can't deliver. The question is whether that's really the case. Boomers have known for decades that the SS system is not sustainable over the long term, but they don't care because that won't (or they won't let it) affect them.

[RhodyGreg14]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby Exactly! Their response, of course, is that the future welfare of their grandkids isn't their problem, as that's not the mission of the AARP. Taking care of grandkids is their parents' responsibility. Overall, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't promise benefits you can't deliver. The question is whether that's really the case. Boomers have known for decades that the SS system is not sustainable over the long term, but they don't care because that won't (or they won't let it) affect them.

Its the same arguement I see in small towns. Old people don't want to pay for school departments because they don't have kids in the system. The conveniently forget that when they were younger and had kids in school, the seniors at that time did their share to help foot the bill.

Since young people don't vote (or contribute) nearly as much as boomers, of course the gov't would appeal to them instead of us.

[73ss454]

Hey, the more SS I get the more I can leave the Grand Kids.