Coming Generational Showdown

[Tekward]

A good read on how SS has grown beyond it's design and will become a future burden:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/grandparents-raiding-grandchildren/548117/

“Fifty years ago, the government spent $3 on public investments that spur economic activity for every $1 it spent on entitlements. Today, that ratio has flipped, and within a decade the government will be putting $5 into entitlements for every $1 that goes into roads, education, scientific research, and the like.” By the time all the Boomers retire, programs to pay for them—plus interest on the national debt they’ve run up in the meantime—will consume more than 90 cents of every federal dollar."

 

[USGrant1962]

That article was pretty nonsensical. First the author rants about reigning in entitlements, then he rants about millennials paying for entitlements. The author has no solutions, but got paid for an article.

 

[audreyh1]

I thought a book by that title had been published around a decade ago.

 

[Midpack]

Another article explaining SS and other entitlements are Paygo programs despite the smoke and mirrors. Though there may still be many, anyone who still insists they’re just getting back what they paid in is willfully ignorant. The only “fair” solution is generationally shared sacrifice, with some tweaks for transition.

 

[Amethyst]

Willful and vehement ignorance. The overlap with the "Don't you dare call my entitlement program an 'entitlement!' set is pretty broad.

anyone who still insists they’re just getting back what they paid in is willfully ignorant..

 

[gayl]

I've often stated that we need to raise FRA to 70, keep early RA at 62 but obviously diminished, remove contribution limit (currently 118k?) while capping payout at whatever max is now. Everyone has the option of putting aside something if they wish to retire b4 FRA. And yes, DD can only afford 5% whereas 10% isn't a struggle for DS. But 5% > 0%

Also let's uncouple SSI / SSDI from SSA.

 

[Red Badger]

I've often stated that we need to raise FRA to 70, keep early RA at 62 but obviously diminished, remove contribution limit (currently 118k?) while capping payout at whatever max is now. Everyone has the option of putting aside something if they wish to retire b4 FRA. And yes, DD can only afford 5% whereas 10% isn't a struggle for DS. But 5% > 0%

Also let's uncouple SSI / SSDI from SSA.

+1. I would also support raising RA for those entering workforce today (who will most likely see an average life expectancy well beyond 100 years). Perhaps linking RA, FRA, etc to mortality tables, so the system is dynamic as lifespan is dynamic.

 

[gayl]

+1. I would also support raising RA for those entering workforce today (who will most likely see an average life expectancy well beyond 100 years). Perhaps linking RA, FRA, etc to mortality tables, so the system is dynamic as lifespan is dynamic.

+1

If someone has to retire due to injury or body wearing out (happens in some firlds) there's SSDI

 

[BeachOrCity]

The tweaks to fix it are not that big, but congress doesn't have the balls or the bipartisanship to do it.

Bottom line is when SS / Medicare become a huge drain when compared to their tax revenue (and their votes!), they will fix it. Until then, NOTHING!

 

[gerntz]

The only “fair” solution is generationally shared sacrifice, with some tweaks for transition.

Who decides what "genrerationally shared" is & whatever that is, is "fair"? Me, I think whatever gets shaved will come off the top $ beneficiaries because the mantra will be that we can't harm the poor and those at the top can afford it.

 

[MichaelB]

This thread is getting into policy issues, so moved to the Public Policy forum.

 

[Koolau]

I thought a book by that title had been published around a decade ago.

You are likely referring to THE COMING GENERATIONAL STORM by Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns 2004. I've referred to the book often in these pages. By the way, the authors are quite pessimistic that the problem(s) will be solved until it's too late to do it without great travail. YMMV

 

[Chuckanut]

I have no problem taking a cut in SS benefits if it helps my children. I support SS for several reasons, the primary one being that many of our fellow citizens can't save worth a dime, and therefore would just end up on welfare anyway. At least SS lets them contribute something to their retirement.

That said.... I would take a cut in SS to help my children and not over burden them. It can be fixed, but the longer we wait the more pain to fix it..... blah, blah, blah,.... nothing new here....

 

[ChiliPepr]

That said.... I would take a cut in SS to help my children and not over burden them.

But, what if I don't want to take a cut to help your children?

 

[gayl]

we can't harm the poor and those at the top can afford it.

+1, yes I can afford it .... actually never planned on it so doesn't hurt my standard of living if you limit my increases

The tweaks to fix it are not that big, but congress doesn't have the balls or the bipartisanship to do it.

Bottom line is when SS / Medicare become a huge drain when compared to their tax revenue (and their votes!), they will fix it. Until then, NOTHING!

unfortunately true & by then the cut will be deeper due to delays

 

[Midpack]

It’s too bad some folks consciously vote for their own selfish interests with no regard whatsoever for others. And then wonder why “we” can’t arrive at a consensus.

And it’s easy to blame politicians for not doing anything about entitlements, while overlooking the fact that partisan voters, PACs and orgs like AARP do everything they can to make sure politicians kick the (obviously unsustainable) can down the road for years.

We get what we deserve, and it’s getting worse, not better.

 

[Chuckanut]

Some, perhaps a majority, of people who write articles and report the news to do it in a way that, IMHO, trys to pit us against one another. Maybe I am being to sensitive about this issue, but I do think there are those who profit from dividing our country/civilization/culture into a small chunks and then setting them against each other. I do not mean honest disagreement, even heated disagreement, but rather the "We are right/good/virtuous people and our causes are 100% just, while those who disagree with us are bad/greedy/nasty/folks who are the evil enemy".

We seem to have lost the idea of the loyal opposition.

When I read articles like the above I feel more of this divisive attitude.

Like my old grand pappy used to say "It doesn't matter whose half of the boat is sinking".

 

[haha]

Some, perhaps a majority, of people who write articles and report the news to do it in a way that, IMHO, trys to pit us against one another. Maybe I am being to sensitive about this issue, but I do think there are those who profit from dividing our country/civilization/culture into a small chunks and then setting them against each other. I do not mean honest disagreement, even heated disagreement, but rather the "We are right/good/virtuous people and our causes are 100% just, while those who disagree with us are bad/greedy/nasty/folks who are the evil enemy".

We seem to have lost the idea of the loyal opposition.

When I read articles like the above I feel more of this divisive attitude.

Like my old grand pappy used to say "It doesn't matter whose half of the boat is sinking".

++++

IMO likely a fatal flaw to our late term democracy.

Ha

 

[athena53]

Willful and vehement ignorance. The overlap with the "Don't you dare call my entitlement program an 'entitlement!' set is pretty broad.

I know. I've tried to point out to my "it's not an entitlement" friends that the SS benefit formula is heavily-weighted in favor of lower-income workers (my SS will be about half what I could get if I bought a similar annuity with the $$ my employers and I put in, plus a 6% return). On top of that, 85% of my SS is taxed and I get stuck with IRMAA Medicare surcharges, depending on investment results. They're still convinced that their money is coming out of a little bank account with their name on it that contains all their and their employers' contributions. Most have no clue about SS benefits being taxed which is, in effect, a cut in SS benefits.

 

[Helena]

I have no problem taking a cut in SS benefits if it helps my children.

You could voluntarily pay all or part of your own SS benefits back to the government.

That might buy one overpriced toilet seat for the Pentagon.

.

 

[CRLLS]

That said.... I would take a cut in SS to help my children and not over burden them. ....

In my case, me taking SS at the current formulas and rules, WILL be helping my children. With the help of SS, there will be more $$ left over when we are long gone that will become theirs and their children. My children are not part of the 90-95% covered by SS. So whatever may change to improve the SS trust fund , it will not be helping them at all. Some say that charity begins at home. I am doing the best that I can to help them out. I do not, for this and other reasons, want to take a cut on my benefits.

 

[Midpack]

In my case, me taking SS at the current formulas and rules, WILL be helping my children. With the help of SS, there will be more $$ left over when we are long gone that will become theirs and their children. My children are not part of the 90-95% covered by SS. So whatever may change to improve the SS trust fund , it will not be helping them at all. Some say that charity begins at home. I am doing the best that I can to help them out. I do not, for this and other reasons, want to take a cut on my benefits.

And what about the millions of other people’s children, at least two generations paying (more) into SS on your behalf? Maybe they could pay a little more and later recipients* could do with a little less?

* a case can be made for folks well into their retirement years who can’t easily accommodate a cut in SS benefits, a legitimate consideration. But doing nothing isn’t an answer.

 

[NW-Bound]

 

[Amethyst]

I know, right?? And don't give us that "fixed income" sad-eye nonsense. Some people don't have any income, and would be glad to have one that is fixed! Now, get off my doorstep!

 

[Chuckanut]

Of course, one could argue that for nearly a decade many of us 'seniors' have been getting miserably low interest rates on our savings while the young home buyers are getting fixed 30 year mortgage loan rates that were never available to us at the same age.

And don't get me started on the cost of travel for today's 20 and 30 somethings compared to the real cost when I was the same age.

There are two sides to every coin.