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

[Time2]

But is the ire that you observed age/generation based or is it more income/wealth inequality based?

Most of it is income/wealth inequality, but there are threads that go off on boomers ruining for the young.

 

[Time2]

When they quit buying all of the stupid, unnecessary crap they do, save appropriately and not expect what the "boomers" worked for years to get, then they will be in good shape. That's what I (last of the "boomers" did). As has been stated many times, I did without, saved, took out my first mortgage ever on a starter home at double digit interest rate.

Yeah, we had everything easy and given to us.

Flieger

I want to get in on beatdown too! Yep there is just so many useless items they can spend money on and they do it not thinking of what that money could grow to in 20 years. Yep, lived frugally, we worked at saving and investing it for 37 years, before we made it. My starter home was $33,000. $3,000 down and a 13.75% 30yr mortgage with a 3 year balloon. And I got laid off the week my first mortgage payment was due. And I had to walk both ways uphill in the snow to school. OK, that last part is not true.
All that said, I think it is harder today than it was starting out 40 years ago, especially because of the price of housing. But then, you don't even need 1/2 of what we acquired to have a comfortable life. So get busy and live frugal.

 

[pb4uski]

Not all though. My DD/DSIL, DS and a DNiece, all in their late 40s/early 40s, are all prodigious savers and will be in good shape because they all LBYM.

 

[camfused]

When they quit buying all of the stupid, unnecessary crap they do, save appropriately and not expect what the "boomers" worked for years to get, then they will be in good shape. That's what I (last of the "boomers" did). As has been stated many times, I did without, saved, took out my first mortgage ever on a starter home at double digit interest rate.

Yeah, we had everything easy and given to us.

Flieger

Agreed, but it does not matter what we think...it matters what they think, and vote for. As long as a significant number of them think we are getting more than we earned/deserve, and don't want to pay (even more) for our full SS checks, it is a problem for us.

 

[fognostic]

it does not matter what we think...it matters what they think

Well, if "they" pay higher or even the same social security tax rates for worse social security benefits than "we" get (because the pols don't cut current recipient benefits), then I think "they" would have a very legitimate reason to be upset that "we" are stealing from "them". That is completely independent of all the other gripes "they" have about "us," whether they are valid or not.

Now, if "they" merely think the other gripes are valid too (e.g., housing, college rigged up with a loan scheme that inflates cost and college balance sheets but leaves graduates in massive debt from the subsidized never escape with bankruptcy loans, no hire no fire job market, wages losing ground to inflation at a faster rate, etc.) then adding social security injustice to the pile might indeed inspire some righteous Gen Z rage. The kind with riots and pirate meme flags trying to overthrow governments. Oh, wait ....

 

[youbet]

Relying on the "but boomers vote" security blanket is falling apart. The Gen Z population almost matches that of Boomers and the population of boomers is shrinking as the leading edge is dying off.

I'm surprised at some of the particular posters who act like a modest haircut to their SS would send them into poverty but on other concurrent threads speak of their portfolios doing extremely well and how amazed they are at how much they have accumulated at this point. But, since I don't know the details of their overall financial picture, who knows what their actual situation is?

I would prefer a "share the pain" approach to rescuing SS. Thanks to decades of LBYM budgeting and prudent investing, DW and I will be OK.

I would be more concerned about how Gen's X, Y and Z would vote in aggregate on solutions rather than just focusing on Gen Z.

 

[marko]

I'm surprised at some of the particular posters who act like a modest haircut to their SS would send them into poverty but on other concurrent threads speak of their portfolios doing extremely well and how amazed they are at how much they have accumulated at this point. But, since I don't know the details of their overall financial picture, who knows what their actual situation is?

I would prefer a "share the pain" approach to rescuing SS. Thanks to decades of LBYM budgeting and prudent investing, DW and I will be OK.

I would be more concerned about how Gen's X, Y and Z would vote in aggregate on solutions rather than just focusing on Gen Z.

I think many here, myself included view SS as "my money". This isn't a handout. I worked for it, I paid for it, we have a contract (of sorts) and per the rules, I earned it.

Do whatever you want but don't you dare touch my money regardless of what other income I have.

We already "share the pain" from our personal portfolios and SS through taxes......now I'm supposed to share more and be happy about it? "For the children"?

No. The program was flawed from the beginning. Let those in charge go figure something else out.

Harumpf! (Cane stomp)

 

[djsander]

I’m a later boomer. Since I started working in 1978 the FRA was raised. In addition the FICA tax with holding % was raised 5 times with the current one of 12.4% in place since 1990 with two temporary reductions for employees. Most quick research I’ve done indicates that if this wasn't done then the benefits would have been cut in the mid-1980s. So, I’ve already had my FRA increased, my SS taxes increase and in reality my benefits cut to pay previous generations.

 

[Finance Dave]

Hope this is ok to post here. After some research, this link shows some of the ideas being considered by our legislators. Will any of these ideas make it through? Who knows...but at least it's a glimpse at the types of ideas being considered.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/HoyerPrimus_20250103.pdf

* Admittedly both of the drafters are Democrats...so the "ideas" are ideologically to one side.

DW and I are not yet receiving SS (I'm 64, she's 68). We are waiting until 70 so we can do Roth conversions. To be conservative, we are planning to receive 82% (there are various numbers floating around, but this is one of them as to mandatory cuts worst case) of the amounts on our SS statements just in case cuts have to be made.

The one idea in there that I've not seen and yet is interesting is the idea of increasing the NRA, but only for those in the top 40% of the lifetime indexed earnings category (a bit confusing...says 20% and 40% in the same paragraph...maybe someone can clarify?). This is obviously a progressive move, but one I'd not heard put forward before.

 

[camfused]

^^^ FYI, the official SS annual report says the cut is 25.8%, not 18%.

 

[camfused]

Hope this is ok to post here. After some research, this link shows some of the ideas being considered by our legislators. Will any of these ideas make it through? Who knows...but at least it's a glimpse at the types of ideas being considered.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/HoyerPrimus_20250103.pdf

* Admittedly both of the drafters are Democrats...so the "ideas" are ideologically to one side.

DW and I are not yet receiving SS (I'm 64, she's 68). We are waiting until 70 so we can do Roth conversions. To be conservative, we are planning to receive 82% (there are various numbers floating around, but this is one of them as to mandatory cuts worst case) of the amounts on our SS statements just in case cuts have to be made.

The one idea in there that I've not seen and yet is interesting is the idea of increasing the NRA, but only for those in the top 40% of the lifetime indexed earnings category (a bit confusing...says 20% and 40% in the same paragraph...maybe someone can clarify?). This is obviously a progressive move, but one I'd not heard put forward before.

Interesting report. The only change that affects DW and I is taxing 100% of SS income, but with no haircut in benefits. Personally, we end up with a healthy increase over the current haircut plan.

 

[junkanoo]

Agreed, but it does not matter what we think...it matters what they think, and vote for. As long as a significant number of them think we are getting more than we earned/deserve, and don't want to pay (even more) for our full SS checks, it is a problem for us.

No, it's not. What's important is to think and cut through the baloney.

From Cody Garrett and Sean Mullaney's 2025 book: Tax Planning to and through Early Retirement:

"Did you catch the fact that 58% of the 2024 electorate was age 50 or older. Social Security claimants (and soon-to-be claimants) represent a powerful voting bloc that protects current and future beneficiaries."

So, the combination of the fact that retirees (and near-retirees) vote plus 'politicians like to get re-elected' ensures this will be a non-issue. Politicians are not jeopardizing their own future.

 

[camfused]

No, it's not. What's important is to think and cut through the baloney.

From Cody Garrett and Sean Mullaney's 2025 book: Tax Planning to and through Early Retirement:

"Did you catch the fact that 58% of the 2024 electorate was age 50 or older. Social Security claimants (and soon-to-be claimants) represent a powerful voting bloc that protects current and future beneficiaries."

So, the combination of the fact that retirees (and near-retirees) vote plus 'politicians like to get re-elected' ensures this will be a non-issue. Politicians are not jeopardizing their own future.

I read that about 72% of senior voters voted in the last presidential election. So, iff Gens X, Y, Z, etc get pissed off enough, they possibly could out vote seniors. But, I agree that it is not likely.

 

[Flieger]

I read that about 72% of senior voters voted in the last presidential election. So, iff Gens X, Y, Z, etc get pissed off enough, they possibly could out vote seniors. But, I agree that it is not likely.

Don't you think 100% of senior voters would vote when the issue of reducing SS is on the table?

Flieger

 

[camfused]

Don't you think 100% of senior voters would vote when the issue of reducing SS is on the table?

Flieger

No. Due to physical and mental disabilities, there will never be a 100% turn-out for any issue. Add to that apathy. The last presidential election had huge press coverage, and strong emotions on both sides, and we still only had 72% vote.

 

[marko]

The one idea in there that I've not seen and yet is interesting is the idea of increasing the NRA, but only for those in the top 40% of the lifetime indexed earnings category (a bit confusing...says 20% and 40% in the same paragraph...maybe someone can clarify?). This is obviously a progressive move, but one I'd not heard put forward before.

Delaying the "top 40% of lifetime earnings" group sounds cozy, but my math tells me that's those in the $70k to $90k range. Certainly not considered the wealthy by any stretch.

 

[GenXguy]

^^^ FYI, the official SS annual report says the cut is 25.8%, not 18%.

I read the estimated haircut is 23% under current law if nothing is changed but that the haircut would continue growing from there in the years to follow.

My spreadsheets for when I will get SS use a 25% haircut for the figures.

 

[camfused]

I read the estimated haircut is 23% under current law if nothing is changed but that the haircut would continue growing from there in the years to follow.

My spreadsheets for when I will get SS use a 25% haircut for the figures.

That is what I thought it was too, but the actual report from SS said 25.8%, unless I am reading it wrong.

I quote from the Overview section of the report (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2025/II_A_highlights.html#):

If substantial actions are deferred for several years, the changes necessary to maintain solvency for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds would be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. Significantly larger changes would be necessary if action is deferred until the combined trust fund reserves become depleted in 2034. For example, maintaining 75-year solvency through 2099 with changes that begin in 2034 would require:

•	an increase in revenue by an amount equivalent to a permanent 4.27 percentage point payroll tax rate increase to 16.67 percent starting in 2034,

•	a reduction in scheduled benefits by an amount equivalent to a permanent 25.8 percent reduction in all benefits starting in 2034, or

•	some combination of these approaches.

 

[SnowballCamper]

These threads miss the point and devolve into the "equitable" way to save SS debate.

The point is: There is a heck of a lot of animosity towards "boomers" and that animosity is growing... becoming down right hostile. Put on your hazmat suit and wade into the unmoderated (or at least alternative viewpoint) areas of social media outside of ER and boglehead forums. The quantity and intensity of the "anti-boomer" sentiment is surprising.

Youngers view Olders as having lived through the golden age of opportunity and then pulled the ladder up after them: Housing affordability (% of income to buy 1st home, responsible for high prices by owning multiple homes AND not dying and letting those houses come on to the market). Education affordability ("put myself through college working summers and part time during the school year"). Etc.

Generational wealth transfer is split in to a couple of groups: 1. Only a small chunk of the population has wealth to transfer (place your favorite X% of the population owns Y% of the assets here), 2) The middle part of the aging population is going to burn their assets on nursing home bills, and 3) That transfer is "eventually... maybe" to a younger population that is solely focused on instant gratification NOW.

A common Youngers viewpoint is boomers pulled forward decades worth of consumption via massive debt and are now exiting the party leaving the next gen to pay the debt tab and the SS tab (that they will never benefit from).

Relying on the "but boomers vote" security blanket is falling apart. The Gen Z population almost matches that of Boomers and the population of boomers is shrinking as the leading edge is dying off.

I think these are good points about housing, education, and the wealth transfer. I'm GenX and DD just started college. I've found myself repeating an apology about the national debt...that she's going to have to pay in the future the $112,000 per citizen or $330,000 per taxpayer. There's no inheritance from grandpa or grandma coming her way. Oh, and she certainly isn't of the NOW mindset with her 2025 income all going to her Roth IRA.

If SS is a pay as you go system, then all "MY" contributions aren't really contributions are they? They're just taxes I and my employer paid.

 

[Flieger]

No. Due to physical and mental disabilities, there will never be a 100% turn-out for any issue. Add to that apathy. The last presidential election had huge press coverage, and strong emotions on both sides, and we still only had 72% vote.

While I agree due to some issues not 100%, but apathy when they are taking away SS? I think you are a bit delusional with that thinking. I would bet you a LOT of money it would be well over 80%.

The last election had nothing compared to that level of impact.

Flieger

 

[Flieger]

I think these are good points about housing, education, and the wealth transfer. I'm GenX and DD just started college. I've found myself repeating an apology about the national debt...that she's going to have to pay in the future the $112,000 per citizen or $330,000 per taxpayer. There's no inheritance from grandpa or grandma coming her way. Oh, and she certainly isn't of the NOW mindset with her 2025 income all going to her Roth IRA.

If SS is a pay as you go system, then all "MY" contributions aren't really contributions are they? They're just taxes I and my employer paid.

For any that feel this way, I suggest just not taking your SS and perhaps there will be enough of you that it will delay the inevitable haircut for those that feel it was a "contract" and "agreement" that limited our self funding of personal retirement funds.

Flieger

 

[SnowballCamper]

For any that feel this way, I suggest just not taking your SS and perhaps there will be enough of you that it will delay the inevitable haircut for those that feel it was a "contract" and "agreement" that limited our self funding of personal retirement funds.

Flieger

I'll forfeit SS payments if you pay a taxpayer share of the national debt? just sayin...

SS was much more of a forced funding of retirement for my first two decades of work, as it is for most people. Once I figured out how to save for myself, SS is just another component that will be great, if it's still there. I certainly don't expect my kid to have to pay more tax for my SS, or anyones.

 

[Flieger]

I'll forfeit SS payments if you pay a taxpayer share of the national debt? just sayin...

SS was much more of a forced funding of retirement for my first two decades of work, as it is for most people. Once I figured out how to save for myself, SS is just another component that will be great, if it's still there. I certainly don't expect my kid to have to pay more tax for my SS, or anyones.

To each his own. When government stops wasting what I already send, I'll consider sending more.

You are free to do that as well to alleviate your kids burden.

Flieger

 

[GenXguy]

That is what I thought it was too, but the actual report from SS said 25.8%, unless I am reading it wrong.

I quote from the Overview section of the report (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2025/II_A_highlights.html#):

If substantial actions are deferred for several years, the changes necessary to maintain solvency for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds would be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. Significantly larger changes would be necessary if action is deferred until the combined trust fund reserves become depleted in 2034. For example, maintaining 75-year solvency through 2099 with changes that begin in 2034 would require:

•	an increase in revenue by an amount equivalent to a permanent 4.27 percentage point payroll tax rate increase to 16.67 percent starting in 2034,

•	a reduction in scheduled benefits by an amount equivalent to a permanent 25.8 percent reduction in all benefits starting in 2034, or

•	some combination of these approaches.

OK, I see the issue. That is the long term equivalent cut if the OASI and DI trust funds are combined, but that won't happen under the current law. That would take action from Congress.

Scenario (Fix starting at depletion)

	Starting Year	Immediate Cash Shortfall	Permanent Fix Cut (starting at depletion)
Combined Funds (OASDI)	2034	19%	25.8%
Retirement Fund Only (OASI)	2033	23%	> 25.8% ~31.5%

From your ssa.gov reference: "Under the intermediate assumptions, the projected hypothetical combined OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2034. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits.

The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2033, at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of OASI scheduled benefits. DI Trust Fund reserves are not projected to become depleted during the 75-year period ending in 2099."

 

[fognostic]

I certainly don't expect my kid to have to pay more tax for my SS, or anyones.

Exactly.

Older generations' SS contributions - including contributing by paying the substantial financial cost to raise enough future tax paying children for demographic equilibrium - did not create sufficient surplus and sufficient future tax payers to cover their overly generous future benefits. Expecting this to be fixed by voting for younger generations to pay higher taxes and receive less benefits, while the older generations keep receiving 100% of their overly generous benefits, is selfish theft, plain and simple. Gen Z rage is not entirely without merit.

Back to the topic of this thread - this is why Gen Z would rather cut SS benefits for seniors than pay higher taxes. They aren't stupid. They know the large senior voting block is about to scr*w them.

Everyone's benefits - current and future recipients - need a haircut.