Affluent Boomers

[Texas Proud]

By the time someone does 10 years for a PHD, probably everything he learned the first 6 or 7 are worthless...

I have only heard that engineers are in demand around here... don't know why they do not move...

I know of a few people who do computer software and hardware installation and get paid well (kind of like Geek Squad).. and only have a 'limited' training.. people pay up for this for some reason...

Most of the accounting and finance jobs at my mega corp are going to India... I expect mine will be there soon, but I hope I make it to retirement before then... but then again, they usually do a bad job of 'analysis' so maybe I will still have a job... but they can input and download reports all day long.. and make entries, balance accounts, pay bills, payroll etc...

 

[barbarus]

Well, I think you may be titling those numbers in your favor. You don't need a Ph.D to get a decent job, and many trades have a long apprenticeship.

At any rate, you have not answered the 5% unemployment question. If things are so bad, why isn't that number much worse? Why don't the tables Independent provided show a much worse picture (even accounting for some fudge - they are not doom/gloom)? Why do we have people risking their lives to come into this country?

-ERD50

The Ph.Ds bagging groceries and flipping burgers count as being employed.

People want to come to the USA because things are even worse in their 3d world countries.

There must be a terrible mismatch of talent if there are companies that truly need tech workers because the Midwest could ship them to anywhere else in the country by the cargo container load. I encounter these guys on a fairly regular basis.
Again, the interested reader is directed to Goolge UofC CS Prof. Dr. Norm Matloff.

Here's another interesting site: Http://www.kermitrose.com/econ.html#2007

 

[megacorp-firee]

Working at megacorp, a colleague of mine who was not as ambitious (a nine to fiver), not very aggressive (never volunteered to do any thing above and beyond the job description), not as political (would always tell people 'what he thought'), who thought his MBA (vs my BS degree) gave him god given rights to the fast track, and who by my estimations was not quite as bright as I was, made the following comment when I got 2 promotions (ahead of him) and a bunch of awards (vs his none). .... quote: 'You are the luckiest person I know'. He went on to say that my outgoing nature (not quite the term he used) also 'fooled' the higher ups. My response was that he was right... I found that the harder I worked, the luckier I got. He didn't talk to me for days.

Over the years I have developed my outlook and philosophy on life. I treated the megacorp career as a game. I figured out (really understood what it took to maximize my income and career) the rules of the game and then choose whether or not I would play the particular game. I got to the point where I choose not to play on occasion, due to it not worth the sacrifice expected. I eventually got to the point where my experience and knowledge level allowed me to play the game 'my way'.

After saying this, you do have to have a degree of luck (both good and bad). Being in the right place at the right time. Having the right opportunity arise when you are in a position to take advantage of it. You also have the instances where you are too late for an opportunity (the bad luck side of it), or you are missing a criteria for promotion just when the job opens up. But I find that if you keep your wits about you, you can make sure you get the experiences, the knowledge, the contacts, ...etc. that you need to to be successful.

IMO, you have to take the 'glass half full' attitude and take the responsibility for your actions or inactions. If you don't, then you blame bad luck or no luck on your missed opportunities and then you go into a downward spiral. Don't get caught up in this, it is not useful nor productive.

 

[armor99]

Working at megacorp, a colleague of mine who was not as ambitious (a nine to fiver), not very aggressive (never volunteered to do any thing above and beyond the job description), not as political (would always tell people 'what he thought'), who thought his MBA (vs my BS degree) gave him god given rights to the fast track, and who by my estimations was not quite as bright as I was, made the following comment when I got 2 promotions (ahead of him) and a bunch of awards (vs his none). .... quote: 'You are the luckiest person I know'. He went on to say that my outgoing nature (not quite the term he used) also 'fooled' the higher ups. My response was that he was right... I found that the harder I worked, the luckier I got. He didn't talk to me for days.

Over the years I have developed my outlook and philosophy on life. I treated the megacorp career as a game. I figured out (really understood what it took to maximize my income and career) the rules of the game and then choose whether or not I would play the particular game. I got to the point where I choose not to play on occasion, due to it not worth the sacrifice expected. I eventually got to the point where my experience and knowledge level allowed me to play the game 'my way'.

After saying this, you do have to have a degree of luck (both good and bad). Being in the right place at the right time. Having the right opportunity arise when you are in a position to take advantage of it. You also have the instances where you are too late for an opportunity (the bad luck side of it), or you are missing a criteria for promotion just when the job opens up. But I find that if you keep your wits about you, you can make sure you get the experiences, the knowledge, the contacts, ...etc. that you need to to be successful.

IMO, you have to take the 'glass half full' attitude and take the responsibility for your actions or inactions. If you don't, then you blame bad luck or no luck on your missed opportunities and then you go into a downward spiral. Don't get caught up in this, it is not useful nor productive.

Your post made my day!!! Thanks..... I needed that... I have always believed that we make our own luck. If you suddenly come upon the real estate deal of the century (say a $200,000 home being sold for $5,000), but you were not far-sighted enough to have saved $5,000, then you cannot take advantage of that "lucky break". We have to put ourselves in positions where "lucky breaks" can find us. And that is something each one of us can do to shift the odds in our favor. Even on a roulette wheel in Vegas, with the "0" and "00". It only shifts the odds around 8% in the houses favor. But even that small advantage over time, makes huge amounts of money for the casino. The same logic applies here...

 

[kombat]

the median real income for males with bachelor's degrees has been approximately flat for the last 30 years. The different tables give slightly different results.

These numbers don't support the notion that "People today have it a lot harder than people did a generation ago".

But that only considers income, and completely ignores costs. The biggest single expense for most people is housing, and housing expenses have increased at a rate that wildly outpaces inflation, or even income growth. It's a double-edged sword. Aging boomers are finding that their home has turned out to be their best investment. But that's because it's increased in price so much faster than the rest of the market, to the point of making housing unaffordable to people who could have easily afforded such housing a generation earlier.

So sure, current workers might be making incomes comparable to their parents, but our houses and gas cost way more, even after adjusting for inflation.

 

[Independent]

But that only considers income, and completely ignores costs. The biggest single expense for most people is housing, and housing expenses have increased at a rate that wildly outpaces inflation, or even income growth. It's a double-edged sword. Aging boomers are finding that their home has turned out to be their best investment. But that's because it's increased in price so much faster than the rest of the market, to the point of making housing unaffordable to people who could have easily afforded such housing a generation earlier.

So sure, current workers might be making incomes comparable to their parents, but our houses and gas cost way more, even after adjusting for inflation.

The numbers in the tables are CPI adjusted, so they do include changes in costs.

I'm not sure what to make of "our houses and gas cost way more, even after adjusting for inflation". Doesn't "adjusting for inflation" take care of the increased costs of housing and gas?

You could be saying that the CPI is understating the actual increases in prices. Other people will say it overstates the increase. I'm an agnostic on that issue, other than to say it's not dramatic in either direction. So I still come up with a general statement that things aren't getting worse for college grads, but they aren't getting a lot better, either.

I think things really are getting worse for people who don't have college degrees.

 

[kombat]

The numbers in the tables are CPI adjusted, so they do include changes in costs.

But haven't housing costs consistently outpaced the general inflation rate? If not, then I apologize. But my impression is that the CPI has averaged around 3%, while housing price increases have been closer to 10%.

I'm not sure what to make of "our houses and gas cost way more, even after adjusting for inflation". Doesn't "adjusting for inflation" take care of the increased costs of housing and gas?

I don't think it does, no. Not entirely, at least. How is the CPI computed? Isn't it weighted more toward consumer goods than basic necessities? That is, do I really care if big screen TVs cost 3% more this year, if I can barely afford the mortgage on my house?

You could be saying that the CPI is understating the actual increases in prices.

I believe that is exactly the case, yes. It's as simple as looking at what comprises the CPI calculation and considering whether or not it is an accurate cross-section of the typical person's budget. Also, consider the source. It is in the government's best interest to portray the number as small as possible, to minimize the required increases in COLA'd payouts like Social Security (in the US) and CPP (in Canada).

So I still come up with a general statement that things aren't getting worse for college grads, but they aren't getting a lot better, either.

I've expounded on this issue in great depth already in another thread so I'll try not to repeat myself too much here. My argument boils down to the following assertions:

1. Today's generation is more heavily taxed than their parents were.
2. Housing is currently more expensive, as a percentage of one's income, than it was for baby boomers.
3. The current generation faces higher costs for health-care, combined with the double-whammy of needing to care for aging parents.
4. The current generation's employers have cut back retirement benefits, shifting the burden for retirement savings onto the employees, rather than offering the traditional pensions that their parents benefitted from.

I think things really are getting worse for people who don't have college degrees.

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, I'd expand that to include people with degrees, too. The problem, as I see it, is that millions of boomers are retiring, and demanding that their portfolios outpace inflation. Of course, in order to accomplish this (and attract investor dollars), corporations need to squeeze every last profit they can out of the market. That means cutting employee benefits, cutting quality, outsourcing, even outright lying in the accounting books. The current generation is paying for all of this, while simultaneously shouldering the burden of massive amounts of government debt that were racked up while fueling the economy that the boomers benefitted from (not to mention the senseless wars).

 

[Independent]

Agreed, my experience also. But in a free market, the pay difference is not so much based on how hard you work, but on what the company needs to pay to get the skills they need.

There are plenty of people to work the assembly line, even though it is hard, demanding work. So $X/hour gets the company as many people as they need.

There are fewer people with degrees in specialized areas, and those people wouldn't put in the time, money, and effort to get the degrees in that area if there were not a good enough supply/demand ratio to command that 3-4X salary.

I also agree with your previous premise - there probably is not that huge of a difference between generations. Obtain education or a needed skill, apply yourself, and you will very likely do better than the median. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
-ERD50

I'll certainly agree that an efficient market doesn't pay for "hard work", it pays for "results". Some of us are lucky enough to be able to produce above average results without above average effort.

My point was that, while it always helps to work hard, some people get more out of their hard work than others. If we're talking about people who make significantly more than the median, I think that the primary source of the extra income is better luck, and harder work is secondary.

 

[youbet]

1. Today's generation is more heavily taxed than their parents were.

Generally not true here. I help my son with his taxes, using TruboTax most years. I see no difference between the tax tables/formulas for him as compared to the tax tables/formulas for me. They're the same. No separate tax tables for old folks and young folks. Sales taxes are also the same. One exception in generational taxes might be that you can qualify for a homestead exemption on your real estate taxes if you're over 65.

2. Housing is currently more expensive, as a percentage of one's income, than it was for baby boomers.

Again, not true here. No discounts for being over a certain age being granted. A 60 year old pays the same $$$/sq ft as a 30 year old. Where are you that older folks are granted discounts on housing? What's the age cutoff?

3. The current generation faces higher costs for health-care, combined with the double-whammy of needing to care for aging parents.

Again, I don't see the difference. In fact, my health costs have been screaming upward as I get older! And, I help pay for parents living expenses.

4. The current generation's employers have cut back retirement benefits, shifting the burden for retirement savings onto the employees, rather than offering the traditional pensions that their parents benefitted from.

Here it does seem that the percentages of employers offering DBP's has decreased, but far from all "older" folks haveDBP's. And, older folks paid the price in terms of missed opportunities by being locked into the same job for decades by golden handcuffs while higher paying opportunities languished.

[/quote]

 

[Independent]

But haven't housing costs consistently outpaced the general inflation rate? If not, then I apologize. But my impression is that the CPI has averaged around 3%, while housing price increases have been closer to 10%.

I don't think it does, no. Not entirely, at least. How is the CPI computed? Isn't it weighted more toward consumer goods than basic necessities? That is, do I really care if big screen TVs cost 3% more this year, if I can barely afford the mortgage on my house?

I believe that is exactly the case, yes. It's as simple as looking at what comprises the CPI calculation and considering whether or not it is an accurate cross-section of the typical person's budget. Also, consider the source. It is in the government's best interest to portray the number as small as possible, to minimize the required increases in COLA'd payouts like Social Security (in the US) and CPP (in Canada).

I've expounded on this issue in great depth already in another thread so I'll try not to repeat myself too much here. My argument boils down to the following assertions:

1. Today's generation is more heavily taxed than their parents were.
2. Housing is currently more expensive, as a percentage of one's income, than it was for baby boomers.
3. The current generation faces higher costs for health-care, combined with the double-whammy of needing to care for aging parents.
4. The current generation's employers have cut back retirement benefits, shifting the burden for retirement savings onto the employees, rather than offering the traditional pensions that their parents benefitted from.

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, I'd expand that to include people with degrees, too. The problem, as I see it, is that millions of boomers are retiring, and demanding that their portfolios outpace inflation. Of course, in order to accomplish this (and attract investor dollars), corporations need to squeeze every last profit they can out of the market. That means cutting employee benefits, cutting quality, outsourcing, even outright lying in the accounting books. The current generation is paying for all of this, while simultaneously shouldering the burden of massive amounts of government debt that were racked up while fueling the economy that the boomers benefitted from (not to mention the senseless wars).

I don't want to get into an extended debate with you, because I think I'm closer to your opinion than some other people on this board. However, I should point out a few things:

Since the CPI is intended to reflect average prices, it's not surprising that some components will increase faster than the CPI and some slower. The market basket the BLS uses is determined by the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which tracks how real people spend their money. The commonly quoted number isn't intended to include only the necessities of life. It is very difficult to put truly new products (computers, cell phones, ipods) into the numbers accurately. Older people look at young people using those things and take that as evidence that things are going pretty well. They tend to forget that in today's families mothers are more likely to work outside the home.

Most people see their housing costs as partially the price of the house and partially the price of money. Some of the increase in house prices is offset by (even "the result of") cheaper mortgages. Some is a bubble, which is hopefully temporary. I've heard that the CPI uses "rental equivalents" instead of house prices. People debate whether this is accurate.

The ratio of the national debt to the GDP peaked at the end of WWI, decreased until the late 70's, and has fluctuated since then. One issue with the debt is the difference between "debt held by the public" and "general fund debt". The primary difference is debt held by gov't trust funds (e.g. social security).

 

[kombat]

1. Today's generation is more heavily taxed than their parents were.

Generally not true here. I help my son with his taxes, using TruboTax most years. I see no difference between the tax tables/formulas for him as compared to the tax tables/formulas for me. They're the same. No separate tax tables for old folks and young folks.

Sorry, perhaps I should've been clearer. I was referring to the taxes boomers paid in the same stage of their lives as their current children are now. During the "wealth accumulation" phase, boomers were burdened with lower taxes than their children currently are, making it easier for them to accumulate savings.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't property taxes, income taxes (I'm speaking about the percentages here, not just the absolute amounts which obviously would've been lower simply due to inflation), capital gains taxes, and social security premiums all much lower back in the 60's and 70's?

(Housing) Again, not true here. No discounts for being over a certain age being granted.

This seems to have been written under the same misunderstanding. I'm referring to the Boomers' cost of housing when they bought them compared to a young couple starting out today, trying to find a house. As a multiple of their income, Boomers had cheaper housing, in my opinion.

 

[ERD50]

My argument boils down to the following assertions:

1. Today's generation is more heavily taxed than their parents were.

Really? Marginal rates today are at historically low levels, aren't they? What were they 30 years ago?

2. Housing is currently more expensive, as a percentage of one's income, than it was for baby boomers.

Houses today are much bigger on average, and better equipped than 30 years ago. Central air, granite, dishwasher, Microwave, big screen TV. etc, etc, etc - not as common in the 70's. Hey, a 'Harvest Gold' refrigerator was really 'up-scale'

3. The current generation faces higher costs for health-care, combined with the double-whammy of needing to care for aging parents.

Well, my parents (and my In-Laws) had to care for their parents - but it looks like my parents (and my In-Laws) will be self sufficient. Is there a trend here? I think you need some data to back that up.

Higher cost for health care? Sure, but we also have procedures that were unavailable 30 years ago. Would you rather undergo a triple by-pass today, or one in 1977? You have the option of an organ transplant if you need it - our parents/grandparents probably would have just died. I like options, but they do cost money.

4. The current generation's employers have cut back retirement benefits, shifting the burden for retirement savings onto the employees, rather than offering the traditional pensions that their parents benefitted from.

Well, (I think youbet has pointed this out before), this could be a blessing in disguise. Some of those pensions were cut - if you HAD to save it yourself, you would have the money. In the long run, the money to fund those pensions came out of your paycheck one way or the other. Just like SS, I'd rather have the money in my own name.

I feel much more secure with my 401K and personal money, than I do with SS or the retirement benefits that my company 'promised' me.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't property taxes, income taxes (I'm speaking about the percentages here, not just the absolute amounts which obviously would've been lower simply due to inflation), capital gains taxes, and social security premiums all much lower back in the 60's and 70's?

Gosh kombat, I recently destroyed my old tax returns. I actually had them going back to the 60's. So I can't go look at the tax tables and see what the brackets and marginal rates were. I don't remember them being less than today's highly favorable rates. In fact, I can say today's rates are more favorable than those of a few years ago, just can't remember exactly what they were many, many years ago. Perhaps you can google up some info?

This seems to have been written under the same misunderstanding. I'm referring to the Boomers' cost of housing when they bought them compared to a young couple starting out today, trying to find a house. As a multiple of their income, Boomers had cheaper housing, in my opinion.

I suppose it would vary from area to area. I can only give an anecdotal example from my own experience. My first job out of college paid $11k/yr. Shortly thereafter, I paid $34.5k for a 3 bdrm/1 bath house with few amenities and needing some repair. So, I gave 3.1 X annual for my home. Today, new grads in my field start at a minimum of $50k/yr in similar Megacorp situations. 3.1 X $50k = $155k. In our area, you can still buy a 3 bdrm/1bath home with few amenities and needing some repairs for that amount. That's just how it worked for me here in northern Ill.

 

[ERD50]

I was referring to the taxes boomers paid in the same stage of their lives as their current children are now. During the "wealth accumulation" phase, boomers were burdened with lower taxes than their children currently are, making it easier for them to accumulate savings.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't property taxes, income taxes (I'm speaking about the percentages here, not just the absolute amounts which obviously would've been lower simply due to inflation), capital gains taxes, and social security premiums all much lower back in the 60's and 70's?

OK, you are WRONG. I wish it wasn't so, I would have had a lot more money to invest in the bull market of the 90's.

I just dug out my 1982 tax return - my income had just started jumping at that point, I was married and my wife worked, no kids.

rounded:

AGI: $53,400

Taxable Income: $41,100 (no added credits)

That put me in the (hate to disillusion you) 39% marginal tax bracket.

Your turn - Figure the inflation adjusted level for a 2-income, no kids equivalent today, and see if the rates are much different.

OK, here's a start - 2007 Tax Rates:

* 10% on the income between $0 and $15,650
* 15% on the income between $15,650 and $63,700; plus $1,565.00
* 25% on the income between $63,700 and $128,500; plus $8,772.50
* 28% on the income between $128,500 and $195,850; plus $24,972.50
* 33% on the income between $195,850 and $349,700; plus $43,830.50
* 35% on the income over $349,700; plus $94,601.00

I don't even see a 39% in there - so you can save yourself the trouble of adjusting for inflation. Even a ridiculous 8x for inflation would put you at 33% - heck you guys are getting a bargain, and complaining about it. Give me a break.

I think you guys have a serious case of 'the grass is greener' syndrome. Get over it - seriously. It's self-defeating.

-ERD50

 

[REWahoo]

Hey, ERD. Don't forget to tell them we had to walk to school barefoot...in the snow...uphill both ways.

 

[kombat]

Really? Marginal rates today are at historically low levels, aren't they? What were they 30 years ago?

To be honest with you, I don't know. I wasn't around, but I was under the impression that income tax was a relatively new creation (a "temporary" war measure) that was much less burdensome than later rates in the 80's and 90's. Also, did capital gains tax even exist in the 60's? And Social Security was lower too, wasn't it? After all, back then, people worked till 65 and died after 10 years. People are retiring earlier and living longer, so hasn't that added cost been reflected in the tax burden?

Well, my parents (and my In-Laws) had to care for their parents - but it looks like my parents (and my In-Laws) will be self sufficient. Is there a trend here?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Suffice to say, parents end up caring for their children. While the boomers may have enjoyed a period of unprecedented prosperity in accumulating a nest egg their own parents couldn't have afforded, it remains to be seen if they are capable of making those funds last, or if they squander them early and become burdens to their children.

Higher cost for health care? Sure, but we also have procedures that were unavailable 30 years ago. Would you rather undergo a triple by-pass today, or one in 1977? You have the option of an organ transplant if you need it - our parents/grandparents probably would have just died. I like options, but they do cost money.

True, but it's the current generation that is bearing that cost. That's my point. Boomers are done making income, and are thus also done (for the most part) paying taxes. Yet they're the ones consuming all these fancy, expensive new medical procedures. This effect is of course less prominent in a country like the US with private health care than it will be in my own (Canada) with socialized health care.

Well, (I think youbet has pointed this out before), this could be a blessing in disguise. Some of those pensions were cut - if you HAD to save it yourself, you would have the money. In the long run, the money to fund those pensions came out of your paycheck one way or the other. Just like SS, I'd rather have the money in my own name.

Yes, youbet had an excellent point, in that at least my generation knows that there is no safety net, and can plan accordingly. However, I disagree with your assumption that the difference is being forwarded on to the employees. My own experience shows that companies are cutting expensive pension plans, and rather than giving the money to the employees, they are instead claiming it as extra profit and giving it to shareholders. Employees' salaries do not rise commensurate with the cut to pension benefits. They are instead expected to fend for themselves, with the same amount of money that their pensioned predecessors had to work with - an obvious disadvantage, in my opinion.

I don't remember them being less than today's highly favorable rates. Perhaps you can google up some info?

I suppose that would give us a conclusive answer. Maybe if I have some time later I'll dig in and do some research. No doubt it'll be extremely difficult to compare marginal rates across eras, income stratas, and geographic regions (hence my procrastination in actually digging up some hard numbers).

 

[ERD50]

I won't do the whiole 1982 table, but it STARTS @ 12% above $3,400


25% above 20,200

39% above 35,200

44% above 45,800

49% above 60,000

and - hold onto your hats -

50% above 85,600

yep - dem were da good old days. Wanna trade?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Hey, ERD. Don't forget to tell them we had to walk to school barefoot...in the snow...uphill both ways.

You got to walk? I had to pull the milk wagon into town, sell the milk, then come home and feed the cows. Slacker!

-ERD50

PS - this was before the invention of the wheel - milk wagons are a bummer to drag!

 

[kombat]

OK, you are WRONG. I wish it wasn't so, I would have had a lot more money to invest in the bull market of the 90's.

I think you guys have a serious case of 'the grass is greener' syndrome. Get over it - seriously. It's self-defeating.

OK, you looked at one class of taxation. I listed several others. What were the capital gains rates in 1982? What was the property tax rate, as a multiple of home value? What were the Social Security premiums, as a percentage of income? (I'm not sure that even makes sense - are Social Security costs buried in your regular taxes? I'm Canadian - we pay separate premiums for Canada's version of Social Security).

 

[youbet]

Thanks for digging out that old tax return ERD50! I really did get rid of my stuff earlier than the late 90's just over the past couple of weeks. Tax records, brokerage information, records from buying our first house in 1971, etc., etc., all into the wood stove!

I also went through the boxes of crap I brought home from MegaCorp when I retired 18 months ago. It was a little sentimental for the first few hours, but, in the end it mostly went into the woodstove too! Org charts, congratulatory and thank you letters, professional certifications, performance reviews, monthly reports, expense reports, travel records, etc., all converted to heat. But, that's the subject for another thread........

Edited to add: Oh yeah, plaques went into the woodstove too! It just seems like yesterday management was telling me....... "No raises again this year, but here's another plaque for you and your team to show our appreciation for another record year!" Hee...hee.... If you can't pay 'em, plaque 'em!

 

[kombat]

ERD, I'm not sure you're being honest. You're ignoring inflation - a cardinal sin on this forum.

Take a reasonable salary for 2007, say, $63,000. Based on the tables you posted, in 2007, the individual would owe the following:

10% on the income between $0 and $15,650 ($1,560)
15% on the income between $15,650 and $63,000; ($7,102)

For a total tax bill of $8,662, or 13.7% of their income.

Assuming 3% inflation, $63,000 in 2007 is $30,089 in 1982. Their tax obligation would be

12% from $3,400 to $20,200 ($2,016)
25% from $20,200 to $30,089 ($2,472)

for a total tax bill of $4,488, or 14.9% of their income.

1.2%. That's the difference. Admittedly, it doesn't appear that income taxes are substantially higher today than they were 25 years ago. Indeed, it looks like they're 1.2% lower.

My perspective is as a Canadian. Income tax rates in Canada are much higher than the numbers you posted. In addition, there is provincial income tax on top of that. Then there's the provincial sales tax, and national sales tax, which combine to add another 13% onto everything we purchase. The national sales tax didn't exist in 1982, so that reduces the parents' cost by at least 5% (it was 7% up until a year ago).

 

[ERD50]

re: healthcare

True, but it's the current generation that is bearing that cost. That's my point. Boomers are done making income, and are thus also done (for the most part) paying taxes. Yet they're the ones consuming all these fancy, expensive new medical procedures.

kombat - would you like to pay my retiree health insurance? It's over $8500 per year. Please give me a name and address of someone in the current generation that I can send the bill to. That would be nice.

I also have not incurred anywhere near that in actual expenses, so I am paying someone else's way - but I'm OK with that, that is what insurance is all about.

Time for you to do some homework, or doesn't the 'current' generation find that necessary? Just about every complaint you have is unfounded. In fact, they are more like the opposite of what you claim.

No capital gains tax!!! Gee, I didn't file a schedule D that year, but looking at the forms, it appears to go right under 'income' so I'm pretty sure it would have been taxed at my marginal rate of 39%. Lucky me.

Maybe you can look that up and inform me if it is different.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

You got to walk? I had to pull the milk wagon into town, sell the milk, then come home and feed the cows. Slacker!

-ERD50

PS - this was before the invention of the wheel - milk wagons are a bummer to drag!

By any chance, did you trade the cow for some beans? Did the beans grow into a vine reaching to the clouds? Did you climb it? Was there a giant up there?

 

[youbet]

My perspective is as a Canadian. Income tax rates in Canada are much higher than the numbers you posted. In addition, there is provincial income tax on top of that. Then there's the provincial sales tax, and national sales tax, which combine to add another 13% onto everything we purchase. The national sales tax didn't exist in 1982, so that reduces the parents' cost by at least 5% (it was 7% up until a year ago).

Are you being honest with us kombat? This crap can't be true! Do a search for the posts made by a Canadian named Zipper. He's been consistently telling us that everything in Canada is perfect in all regards with absolutely no flaws or room for improvement. Go read his last few dozen posts. What you're saying can't be true.

 

[REWahoo]