Old Pharts are crushing us :-(

[Jay_Gatsby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

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

Is that a promise? If you decide not to leave them your money (or less than you were going to leave them), would they be entitled to complain?

 

[73ss454]

Is that a promise? If you decide not to leave them your money (or less than you were going to leave them), would they be entitled to complain?

The grand kids are entitled to nothing. I choose to leave them what I have. That's the way life should be.

As far as my SS goes, well, I don't even know you. We all have to fight our own battles and do what's best for us.

As I stated before, get the politicos to keep their hands off my money and I would feel differently.

I'll leave it at that, we're not going to change each others minds.

Good luck.

 

[Zipper]

If you guys had followed the Canada Pension Plan lead a decade ago you wouldn't need to have this debate.

 

[Hamlet]

Unfortunately, you keeping your chair requires the government to step on the throat of my generation and the one after mine.

At some point those generations will defend themselves.

Remember, the armed forces are made up of the young. If you continue to demand our immolation, I would expect them to be the final arbitrators of this dispute.

Which side do you think they will choose

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.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Unfortunately, you keeping your chair requires the government to step on the throat of my generation and the one after mine.

At some point those generations will defend themselves.

Remember, the armed forces are made up of the young. If you continue to demand our immolation, I would expect them to be the final arbitrators of this dispute.

Which side do you think they will choose

Not sure it's a question of armed forces (although that is an interesting thought), but rather senior care. If you don't care about us, then we won't care about you. So when you run out of money and SS won't pay the bills, don't look to your kids or grandkids for a handout. We won't have any money to give you.

 

[Goonie]

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.

Ditto.

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.

Why is it that there is always the talk that "it would require a reduction in their benefits or increasing the age" on the Boomers, but seldom any talk about increasing the SS tax on the Gen X'ers? That to me sounds a little one sided! Gen X'ers want the Boomers to give up their benefits, so what is it that Gen X'ers are willing to contribute....other than the rhetoric that everything is mostly the Boomer's fault?

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.

I have no vested interest in it, therefore why would I devote my time to it? I fought all of my life for my ideals, even while busting my hump w*rking, and and now that I'm FIRE'd I still fight for my ideals. Seems that maybe the younger generations should band together and fight for themselves, as has been done throughout history. Because quite frankly, it ain't my battle to fight! That's life.

 

[ziggy29]

Why is it that there is always the talk that "it would require a reduction in their benefits or increasing the age" on the Boomers, but seldom any talk about increasing the SS tax on the Gen X'ers? That to me sounds a little one sided! Gen X'ers want the Boomers to give up their benefits, so what is it that Gen X'ers are willing to contribute....other than the rhetoric that everything is mostly the Boomer's fault?

I don't think Xers are saying they shouldn't have to sacrifice as well. I think what they *are* saying is that not ALL of the sacrifices to "fix" SS should be endured by their generation and those after them, especially since they didn't create the mess that needs fixing.

I've not heard younger people say they shouldn't shoulder their share of sacrifices. I have, on the other hand, heard older generations steadfastly refuse to share even one shred of the sacrifice to fix the system for their kids and grandkids long-term.

I'm in my 40s so I'm kind of a "tweener" where this issue is concerned. But I do believe that pain should be shared by all generations, even if I'd leave the less affluent elderly completely alone. I think the attitude of "it's not my problem if future generations are screwed" is an appalling one, and I'd love to see these people look their kids and grandkids in the eye when they justify screwing them and bankrupting their generations.

 

[Goonie]

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.

Exactly! Let the younger folk organize their own lobbying group.....IF they want the lobbying power.

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.......to share in ANY of the pain and sacrifice makes them an organization opposed to the common good, IMO.

AARP isn't an organization dedicated to the common good of all.....it's dedicated to the common good of ol' pharts! Everybody else can get their own dang organization!

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.

DING! DING! DING! If the younger folks could get all of their peers out to vote and stand up publicly for their ideals, they could be heard! Unfortunately, the sad truth is, far too few turn out to vote and thus are not heard.

We all have to fight our own battles and do what's best for us.

At some point those generations will defend themselves.

If you younger folks ever band together, we'll cheer you on from our chairs!

 

[Goonie]

..... especially since they didn't create the mess that needs fixing.

The Boomers didn't create it either.

 

[youbet]

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.

I didn't catch the part where you said you didn't have 40 credits. Without 40 credits, it would appear you won't collect any SS based on your own earnings. And if two thirds of your gov pension is greater that the SS you would receive from hubby's account, GPO will offset that to zero as well.

 

[bongo2]

"We all have to fight our own battles and do what's best for us."

And people wonder why ERs are viewed as selfish.

Thinking that future generations are "entitled to nothing" is NOT the way it should be.

 

[73ss454]

"We all have to fight our own battles and do what's best for us."

And people wonder why ERs are viewed as selfish.

Thinking that future generations are "entitled to nothing" is NOT the way it should be.

OK your right Bongo. So, send me 2K a month for the next 20 years and then when you get to be my age I'll start sending it back.

 

[armor99]

"We all have to fight our own battles and do what's best for us."

And people wonder why ERs are viewed as selfish.

Thinking that future generations are "entitled to nothing" is NOT the way it should be.

That is an interesting point of view bongo. But by the very definition of what Early Retirement is, is it not "selfish" by it's nature? We all want to retire early. Why do we want to do that? It is certainly not for the "public good" is it? No... we all (including me) want to retire early so that "I" have more time in my life to do all of the things that "I" want to do. I could be wrong but I do not see how me retiring early hurts or effects anyone else.
Some have made the claim that I have a responsibility to "society" to work as many yerars as I am physically able to. They say the longer I am working, the more taxes that I pay, the more SS I pay into, and in the long run, wind up helping the "system" as a whole. I of course, like most here (this is the early retirement forum after all) do not believe in this at all.
If you want to contribute as much as you possibly can to society and future generations, then I applaude your efforts to achieve your goals. You are free to donate to charity as much as you might like, and work as many years as you like (maximum payout to SS) to allow your goal to happen. I appreiciate and I am respectful of your views, and you goals. But as for me... I am selfish. I make no apologies or excuses for it. I have earned everything that is coming to me, and I generally feel that others should do the same.

 

[Kronk]

Probably the biggest frustration for the younger set (I'm 33), is that we are being given the message "you can't count on SS being around at all when you are 65". That's the impression I get from the majority of articles I read. So the message is to save enough to cover all of your expenses from your savings.

And then the logical conclusion is that between myself and the company who pays for my services, nearly $13,000 is being shelled out every year, and I won't ever get a benefit from it.

Now, I personally don't take that bleak a view of SS, except when planning for ER. If I'm going to retire in my 40s, I can't rely on a government program 15-20 years later. The whole thing is a bit irritating, but even I wouldn't be in favor of changing the rules for the current or soon-to-be retirees.

 

[RhodyGreg14]

DING! DING! DING! If the younger folks could get all of their peers out to vote and stand up publicly for their ideals, they could be heard! Unfortunately, the sad truth is, far too few turn out to vote and thus are not heard.

Sadly, money talks and people my age (late 20's) normally don't have money for charity, and even less to give to campaigns. The older generations will always fund (for the most part) politicians so we're kinda behind the 8 ball.