Gen Z would rather cut SS benefits for seniors than pay more taxes

[camfused]

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/gen-z-would-prefer-social-security-benefit-cuts-to-tax-hikes-85264.html

Fortunately we outnumber them . But, it does tend to make you think that there will be a solution to SS that no one is going to like (some tax hikes, and some benefit cuts).

 

[jim584672]

Who cares? Young people talk a lot online but don't vote. Seniors all vote.

 

[badatmath]

Why does this surprise you?

 

[RetiredHappy]

Why does this surprise you?

It's like spending millions of dollars in research to show that when you consume more calories, you put on weight. Duh.

 

[Steelpony]

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/gen-z-would-prefer-social-security-benefit-cuts-to-tax-hikes-85264.html

Fortunately we outnumber them . But, it does tend to make you think that there will be a solution to SS that no one is going to like (some tax hikes, and some benefit cuts).

The top employment income limit can be removed, all income can be taxed, the SS fund can be lock boxed, fully tax SS as income etc.

If AI takes over many jobs then what?

Asking a Federal government to fix the problem is like an alcoholic being hired as an overnight guard at Jack Daniels.

Remember how the Feds had to call real computer healthcare experts to get Obamacare up and running? Do that this time, use seasoned pros not Cincinnatus and his farm hands and privatize it. Separate it from the “government of the people.”

 

[camfused]

Why does this surprise you?

Of course this does not surprise me. That is exactly how I would if answered if I was a Gen Z.

The reason I posted this is that a number of people on here think, I believe, that somehow there will be no cuts (third-rail, etc), and another solution will be worked out. I personally have my doubts on that, and think some cuts are unavoidable.

 

[GrayHare]

Who cares? Young people talk a lot online but don't vote. Seniors all vote.

Those youngsters are gradually replacing the seniors, of course.

 

[stepford]

I think by this point we're starting to realize that no one has the political will to fix SS. The only question is whether any sort of window dressing will be applied to make the haircut more palatable when it arrives. Personally I'd be happy with some kind of tax break on RMDs to compensate for seniors' lost income, but I'd be shocked if that kind of tax break would ever be enacted.

 

[camfused]

^^^ Yes, or do the 25% (was 23% but likely has grown) cut, but truly have no taxes on SS. If I plug that into my plan, I come out about the same.

 

[Koolau]

Yeah, us old gummers and codgers can take these young whippersnappers at the poles and with real-actual-hand-written letter writing! We've got this!

 

[Aerides]

And how many SS recipients would rather that GenZ pay higher taxes to avoid any SS reductions?

You could write this nonsense about any scenario, "I want better for my group and less for them" when that is the binary choice.

I don't know what or who "FA-MAG dot com" is, but it doesn't seem worthy of a click.

It's Christmas and we're going to buy into being rage baited? Most of us are smarter than that I think, or hope.

 

[camfused]

^^^ My apologies. Please feel free to delete this thread. I thought this was worthy of discussion, but will not bother posting about this again.

 

[RetiredHappy]

This story was already posted here a couple of weeks ago.

 

[marko]

.....and over the years, I've read many comments here suggesting how WE should sacrifice and accept cuts so that they THEY could benefit!

Ha! Sounds like everybody's on the same page!!

 

[Koolau]

.....and over the years, I've read many comments here suggesting how WE should sacrifice and accept cuts so that they THEY could benefit!

Ha! Sounds like everybody's on the same page!!

I did my part back in the mid '80s when I had to pay on more of my salary and settle for a later retirement. Somebody else's turn to "pay their fair share" - I gave at the office.

 

[JohnnyPHX]

I did my part back in the mid '80s when I had to pay on more of my salary and settle for a later retirement. Somebody else's turn to "pay their fair share" - I gave at the office.

I gave at the office too. They froze our pensions they had been promising to us for many years. They always included it in our annual individual compensation statements. Stick with us and you will get XXXX amount when you retire. Then one year they gave us the old "To remain competitive" BS speech. We were and always had been number 1 in our industry as far as I know. Most of the time we only had one competitor. You might be familiar with my old company. The ships with the big M on them carrying cargo to Hawaii.

 

[Winemaker]

My college dropout nephew ( He had a perfect SAT score and was awarded a 4 year full ride tuition and board scholarship) made a observation out loud yesterday when he said that he is presently our age and realized we had a kid at that time. When I asked him why that situation is; he said it was because it was the lack of financial stability. No $hit $herlock! Who is the main cause of your situation?

 

[MichaelB]

The linked article does a disservice to the Cato Institute study, as does the OP description.

The Cato Institute study (here) is a deep analysis of Social Security and has a wealth of interesting data, analysis and conclusions. It’s highly recommended. Conclusions are that Social Security is a highly popular program, most people don’t understand how it is structured or financed. People believe benefits should be tied to contributions. Younger generations would indeed pay more taxes to make the program more secure, but with a limit. Much more at the link

For data nerds, the end of the summary includes links to the 2 studies.

 

[Gumby]

My college dropout nephew ( He had a perfect SAT score and was awarded a 4 year full ride tuition and board scholarship) made a observation out loud yesterday when he said that he is presently our age and realized we had a kid at that time. When I asked him why that situation is; he said it was because it was the lack of financial stability. No $hit $herlock! Who is the main cause of your situation?

I occurred to me more than once to take my floundering nephews aside and say "let me cut you in on a secret. I know exactly who is responsible for the fact that your life is so hard right now. It's the guy you look at in the mirror every morning. But the good news is that same guy is the one who has the strongest motivation and the greatest ability to turn things around. And I am absolutely certain he will."

Never did it, though, and eventually they got their stuff together without my advice (but with the help of some truly incredible nieces-in-law). I am proud of them all.

 

[lem1955]

The linked article does a disservice to the Cato Institute study, as does the OP description.

The Cato Institute study (here) is a deep analysis of Social Security and has a wealth of interesting data, analysis and conclusions. It’s highly recommended. Conclusions are that Social Security is a highly popular program, most people don’t understand how it is structured or financed. People believe benefits should be tied to contributions. Younger generations would indeed pay more taxes to make the program more secure, but with a limit. Much more at the link

For data nerds, the end of the summary includes links to the 2 studies.

I read most of this study and nowhere did I see the option of continuing to tax workers once they hit whatever the maximum is now on SS withholding. I remember when I hit that maximum and thought to myself, "this is when it is easiest for me to pay in more, why stop now?"

 

[Aerides]

I read most of this study and nowhere did I see the option of continuing to tax workers once they hit whatever the maximum is now on SS withholding. I remember when I hit that maximum and thought to myself, "this is when it is easiest for me to pay in more, why stop now?"

The rational (though I personally do not agree with it), is that since there is a cap on benefits, there needs to be a cap in contributions. To make it...fair? Less than 10% of people are in the group that would pay more, even less if it were a donut where it stopped where it is now, and kicked in again at, say $400k.

But the equity of payments is one of the things that keeps it from being a program that people want to stop.

This is not a country that is kind to entitlements (see Medicaid), but SS evades a lot of attacks because of this delicate balance.

 

[jim584672]

I did my part when they raised the FRA from 65 to 67 in the 1980s. I want my money and I want it now.

 

[Al18]

The parents just need to tell their Gen Z kids if their SS benefits are cut, they’ll need to move in with their kids to afford life. I would imagine the kids would have a complete change of opinion on SS funding.

 

[fognostic]

The social security administration has evaluated several proposals to address insolvency here that I found interesting reading. Insolvency has been predicted between 2033 and 2035 since 2012. Nothing new or surprising here. Social security has always been pay as you go, not a savings plan. When there are fewer workers sending in social security taxes to pay for the checks going to social security recipients that had fewer children (future workers) than prior generations, the system runs out of money. Might as well try to fight gravity as fight demographics.

Short of a magic wand to create more tax paying workers in the country, I think we are going to see some combination of higher taxes - probably including removing the cap on salary subject to taxation - and a benefit cut. Reading over the assessments of the proposed fixes, it is hard for me to imagine the large tax increases necessary to prevent any benefit cut going through. It also strikes me as unfair to expect my children to pay far higher social security tax rates then I ever did to keep my checks coming in.

 

[camfused]

Speaking of proposed solutions, I thought the Brookings Institute one was pretty good: Fixing Social Security | Brookings