View Full Version : Old people complain.....
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-11-2011, 21:34
To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people! :stare:
HoreTore
07-11-2011, 22:24
Yes, good heavens that we actually have to care about each other. On the other hand, the old people of today tried their best to dismantle every social benefit in the world when they were in power during the me-me-me-eighties, so I don't really care about them that much. They had their choice, and they choose instant pleasure over long term gain. Screw 'em, I say.
But what is worse is of course that they can't keep their gnarled old hands from meddling with everything. A lot of them, if not most, have a firm belief that the past was a perfect paradise, and every change made to the world is inherently bad. Old people cannot stand to see young people express themselves freely in ways they did not do themselves, and to me that is sickening.
I do not see any reason whatsoever to care about social commentary from the elderly.
It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people! :stare:
Yes, I'm sure you've contributed far more to the Social Security fund than an 80-year-old retiree. :rolleyes:
Gregoshi
07-11-2011, 22:46
...Eh, nevermind. I'm probably too old to be relevent anymore.
Veho Nex
07-11-2011, 22:53
Back in my days, we listened to and praised our elders, now-a-days you youngins are ruining everything, let me retire in peace after working for 45 years.
Rhyfelwyr
07-11-2011, 23:00
Yes, good heavens that we actually have to care about each other. On the other hand, the old people of today tried their best to dismantle every social benefit in the world when they were in power during the me-me-me-eighties, so I don't really care about them that much. They had their choice, and they choose instant pleasure over long term gain. Screw 'em, I say.
Well if you want to ignore the fact that the today's elderly that are most dependent on welfare come from those segments of society that really opposed (and suffered at the hands of) the economic revolution in the 80's...
All the elderly people I know, including those in my family, would have died before they voted for Thatcher. But hey there's some angry kid on the internet thats upset because old people aren't cool so I guess they don't deserve a decent quality of life...
PanzerJaeger
07-11-2011, 23:02
Is this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022002482.html?nav=hcmoduletmv) the point you were trying to make?
The great question haunting Washington's budget debate is whether our elected politicians will take back government from AARP, the 40 million-member organization that represents retirees and near-retirees. For all the partisan bluster surrounding last week's release of President Obama's proposed 2012 budget, it reflects a long-standing bipartisan consensus not to threaten seniors. Programs for the elderly, mainly Social Security and Medicare, are left untouched. With an aging population, putting so much spending off-limits inevitably means raising taxes, shrinking defense and squeezing other domestic spending - everything from the FBI to college aid.
Power is the ability to get what you want. It suggests that you control events. By these standards, AARP runs government budgetary policy, not presidents or congressional leaders. Obama says we must "win the future," but his budget (and, so far, the Republicans', too) would win the past and lose the future. The massive federal debt would continue to grow because, without restraining retiree spending, there's no path to a balanced budget. The aging infrastructure (roads, airports) wouldn't get needed repairs. The already-stressed social safety net for the poor would be further strained. We would cut defense while China's military expands. All this is insane. It's not the agenda of a country interested in its future.
But it's our agenda. Look at Obama's budget. Under his proposals, annual federal spending rises from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $5.7 trillion in 2021. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the three major entitlements) account for 60 percent of the projected $2 trillion increase. Higher interest payments on the debt - mainly reflecting our inability to control big entitlements - account for 31 percent. Altogether, that's 91 percent of the increase; the rest of government accounts for 9 percent.
Indeed, when corrected for expected inflation and population growth, the rest of government shrinks. A table in Obama's budget shows this clearly. From 2012 to 2021, annual "security" spending (defense and homeland security) would drop 21 percent after inflation and population adjustments. Non-security discretionary spending (a catchall including air traffic control, space, regulation and much more) would fall 24 percent. Other "entitlements" (food stamps and the like) would decline 4 percent. Meanwhile, Social Security would rise 27 percent and Medicare, 32 percent.
AARP sends its representatives to Capitol Hill and think-tank seminars, where they pretend to be "reasonable" while frustrating needed Social Security and Medicare changes. Higher life expectancy and private savings mean that eligibility ages could have been gradually raised and benefits curbed for wealthier retirees. Congress, heeding a 1983 commission proposal, slowly raised the age for full Social Security benefits from 65 to 66 (and to 67, much later). Little else of significance has been done. The result is that any effort to control spending must focus on a small part of the budget (from a seventh to slightly more than a third, including defense). House Republicans have cut many programs sharply - some sensibly, others not. Obama is doing the same, though less dramatically.
But AARP sets overall priorities. Its power derives from the fear it inspires in senators, representatives, presidents and political candidates. They worry that they'll be assaulted and rejected by hordes of angry seniors infuriated by any possible loss of benefits and mobilized by AARP. The question of whether all these benefits are needed or deserved can't be asked, let alone answered. It's impossible to enact a major overhaul of Medicare that might check its uncontrolled spending.
The trouble is that this self-serving inattention won't work. The budgetary math doesn't compute; too much is left out. Obama's projected budget for 2021 is instructive. Despite higher taxes - about 10 percent above the 1971-2010 average - and the budget's deep cuts in defense and domestic discretionary spending, the deficit would remain at an estimated $774 billion, about 3 percent of the economy. And that assumes "full employment," a 5.3 percent jobless rate. By 2021, continuous annual deficits would boost the publicly held federal debt to almost $19 trillion, up from $9 trillion in 2010. So the possibility of a financial crisis, triggered by unmanageable debt levels, would survive even if Obama's budget were adopted.
No one wants to strip needy seniors of essential benefits. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid provide crucial protections for millions of poorer and older households. But for many relatively healthy and economically secure Americans, these programs constitute middle-class welfare. As a society, we need to redefine what's in the public interest and what's not. That's the job of our political leaders.
Obama repeatedly says he'll deal with "entitlements" - and does nothing. He made the promise again last week. Congressional Republicans also committed last week to proposing entitlement changes. We'll see if these pledges are honored or if power continues to be outsourced to AARP.
If so, then I agree to a certain extent. The young are increasingly losing out to the elderly in this country in terms of the allocation of government resources. What is more worrisome, though, is that future investment (in infrastructure, R&D, etc.) is being curtailed to pay for ever-expanding entitlement programs for the elderly. This will make it far more difficult for today's young to maintain the same level of benefits that their parents and grandparents are currently enjoying (which were based, primarily, off of huge government investment in the future after the Second World War).
HoreTore
07-11-2011, 23:05
Well, if you could find a way to deny improved health care for all the elderly who voted for tax cuts, that might be something I would be interested in...
But at any rate, the focus should be on the young.
Tellos Athenaios
07-11-2011, 23:08
Yes, I'm sure you've contributed far more to the Social Security fund than an 80-year-old retiree. :rolleyes:
In as much as we are considering current state of affairs, he probably has done. After all Mr. & Mrs Retired are currently drawing from funds provided by their children and grand children, the funds they used to pay have long since been spent on their parents or were borrowed and need to be paid off with interest.
What's even more ironic is that it is precisely those people who currently are 50 or older that elected into office those responsible for or were directly responsible themselves for squandering the USA's budget surpluses. And specifically, given the practical age requirements for being electable into office, it is those who are roughly 70-80 years old that decided how to spend that money...
The AARP keeps sending me sign-up letters, even though I'm only 40. Got one today (before seeing this thread), was thinking of calling them up, asking to be taken off their spam mailing list, and ranting about their part in the ultimate destruction of the US economy. Now, I just have to do it! :yes:
In as much as we are considering current state of affairs, he probably has done. After all Mr. & Mrs Retired are currently drawing from funds provided by their children and grand children, the funds they used to pay have long since been spent on their parents or were borrowed and need to be paid off with interest.
What's even more ironic is that it is precisely those people who currently are 50 or older that elected into office those responsible for or were directly responsible themselves for squandering the USA's budget surpluses. And specifically, given the practical age requirements for being electable into office, it is those who are roughly 70-80 years old that decided how to spend that money...
I would never claim that the current situation is acceptable. It isn't; it's unsustainable and needs to be fixed immediately before it gets worse. IMO, that involves some cuts to SS and Medicare/aid, as well as tax increases for $200k+ households. However, I don't think it's correct to blame the current seniors for that. The reason SS spending is so much higher than SS income is that medical treatment has significantly increased the average life span since SS was created. When it was founded, the savings rate was based on the idea that only a portion of those people would actually take out more than they put in due to age. Many would die before they even retired and many more would die before they had received it all back. However, we all live much longer now and that's thrown the entire thing out of whack.
As for seniors complaining about having their benefits cut, why wouldn't they? It's no different than someone else whining about a tax increase. Somehow the latter gets passed off as acceptable, so why is the former bad?
Reenk Roink
07-12-2011, 01:00
To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people! :stare:
You have much to learn about irony young whippersnapper :creep:
phonicsmonkey
07-12-2011, 01:01
Well if you want to ignore the fact that the today's elderly that are most dependent on welfare come from those segments of society that really opposed (and suffered at the hands of) the economic revolution in the 80's...
All the elderly people I know, including those in my family, would have died before they voted for Thatcher. But hey there's some angry kid on the internet thats upset because old people aren't cool so I guess they don't deserve a decent quality of life...
Spoken like a true Welshman!
Tellos Athenaios
07-12-2011, 01:23
I would never claim that the current situation is acceptable. It isn't; it's unsustainable and needs to be fixed immediately before it gets worse. IMO, that involves some cuts to SS and Medicare/aid, as well as tax increases for $200k+ households. However, I don't think it's correct to blame the current seniors for that. Sure. It is not the fault of the current seniors alone or something like that. The point however is that, as you noted so succinctly, this low tax + lots of benefits + wars scheme financed on government debt was all too good to last. The bill has arrived, as it were and now you have to split it among who is left to pay for it.
As for seniors complaining about having their benefits cut, why wouldn't they? It's no different than someone else whining about a tax increase. Somehow the latter gets passed off as acceptable, so why is the former bad?
Sure, by all means let them complain how in the 80s and 90s the USA was soo much better and how it is really unfair after 30 years of hard work and tax breaks that their pensions are cut by some amount as the rest of the USA has to deal with far worse in real terms. However that is the point their complaints should not have been taken nearly as seriously as they were and are to the point that the accounting tricks routinely applied to USA balance sheets are the sort of thing which make Enron by comparison look a shining example of childish innocence....
It is that more sinister quality of being able to subvert entire balance sheets worth trillions of dollars on a yearly basis through a particularly strange combination of economic inactivity and demographic scale that make it worth pointing out that with more sensible financial policy by these retirees and those who are about to leave their mess behind you'd not be in this position in the first place.
Crazed Rabbit
07-12-2011, 01:55
To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people! :stare:
How much are you contributing to social security? :inquisitive:
And politicians listen because the AARP is a strong lobbyist (too strong) and old people vote.
CR
Centurion1
07-12-2011, 02:13
AARP is the strongest special interest group in the United states of america. Also the elderly make up a huge segment of the actual voting population. Seniors vote unlike 18 year olds.
Sure, by all means let them complain how in the 80s and 90s the USA was soo much better and how it is really unfair after 30 years of hard work and tax breaks that their pensions are cut by some amount as the rest of the USA has to deal with far worse in real terms. However that is the point their complaints should not have been taken nearly as seriously as they were and are to the point that the accounting tricks routinely applied to USA balance sheets are the sort of thing which make Enron by comparison look a shining example of childish innocence....
I agree with all of this, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these people now live exclusively on social security income, which isn't exactly generous to begin with. Many people do not have alternate sources of income to tap into, and we need to be very careful to ensure that any cuts don't plunge them into poverty. Young people, myself included, have plenty of warnings about the current situation and can plan ahead. I personally do not expect to ever see a single cent of my social security taxes, and am saving for retirement entirely on my own.
Yes, I am paying for the mistakes of previous generations, but there's no other solution at this point. In our current situation, everyone must take a hit regardless of age. Those that can take the hit better than others should shoulder the burden.
Major Robert Dump
07-12-2011, 04:51
According to my last letter, I am pushing 50K in total paid in after 19 years of being a productive, independant adult IIRC
On one hand, its Too bad I didn't figure out the joys of IRS loopholes, self employment and itemizing/deductions unitl I was 28. On the other hand, FICA is based on gross pay, so none of those things would have helped me pay less. This is why I "trade" a lot in my line of work, i.e. under-the-table. Not outright illegal to trade your service to another company in exchange for their service, many are willing to do this especially if they can write it off as a labor/inventory loss on their end. I haven't paid for an oil change, a tow or breakfast in years :P
I love old people.
Hooahguy
07-12-2011, 05:41
Forget Medicare. We need to get them off the roads.
Have you guys never seen the South Park episode "Grey Dawn"?
To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people! :stare:
they show up to vote....we are all hungover on election day...
simple really.
Hosakawa Tito
07-12-2011, 10:56
Old age ain't fer wussies. Now GET OFF ME LAWN.
Major Robert Dump
07-12-2011, 11:01
I'd also like to point out that up until the @1990, Social Security and Medicare were pretty much touted as viable retirement options to the middle aged people of the country because it had been for a couple generations at that point. As a little boy I recall frequently hearing -- both in RL and on TV, movies, etc -- older people talking about how they couldnt wait until they turned the magical age so they could retire and draw social security, etc. Social Security used to be far more generous than it is now.
So telling people they should be ashamed of using it is sort of akin to telling someone who just lost their 401k to stuff it.
That does not, however, excuse the current situation and the pig heads who got us here.
Everybody complains. It's human. We're all a bunch of whiners who can only be happy if they have something to complain about.
That said, it's a bit easy to blame the older generations for everything that's going wrong nowadays. Even if it would be all there fault, shooting everybody who has the nerve to get older than 70 is not an option. Somebody will have to pay the bill and we can't expect the older generations to be the only ones to pay for it.
Just like TinCow, I plan ahead exactly because I don't think I'll ever see the state paying me the pension I'm now paying so much contributions for. I hope I won't regret this and the state won't find some trick to just grab my savings in the future anyway. I would not be amused seeing that happen in the knowledge that I could have lived a far more luxurous live by wasting it all.
Meh, looking at the current generation of politicians in my country, maybe I should indeed just waste all my money now. They're not even capable of solving some linguistic nonsense, so I don't see them finding a solution for the problem of the greying population without grabbing the savings from those who were prudent (foolish?) enough to save money.
Tellos Athenaios
07-12-2011, 20:00
Everybody complains. It's human. We're all a bunch of whiners who can only be happy if they have something to complain about.
That said, it's a bit easy to blame the older generations for everything that's going wrong nowadays. Even if it would be all there fault, shooting everybody who has the nerve to get older than 70 is not an option. Somebody will have to pay the bill and we can't expect the older generations to be the only ones to pay for it.
Exactly, the bill is due now or really soonish and you can't expect any particular demographic to pick up the tab. So the pain has to be shared, and that should/will have to include the retired despite their audible grumblings.
PanzerJaeger
07-12-2011, 23:17
I agree with all of this, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these people now live exclusively on social security income, which isn't exactly generous to begin with. Many people do not have alternate sources of income to tap into, and we need to be very careful to ensure that any cuts don't plunge them into poverty. Young people, myself included, have plenty of warnings about the current situation and can plan ahead. I personally do not expect to ever see a single cent of my social security taxes, and am saving for retirement entirely on my own.
Unfortunately, you are most likely far more responsible than the average American. Our government has made these commitments, and millions of young to middle aged people are taking expensive vacations and buying BMWs with the implicit understanding that they'll have an income stream and virtually free healthcare when they retire.
Strike For The South
07-13-2011, 05:23
Unfortunately, you are most likely far more responsible than the average American. Our government has made these commitments, and millions of young to middle aged people are taking expensive vacations and buying BMWs with the implicit understanding that they'll have an income stream and virtually free healthcare when they retire.
Who exactly is doing this?
Major Robert Dump
07-13-2011, 06:04
I AM TRIFLIN IM A HIGH ROLLER
I GOTS 4 KIAS AND GO TO BRANSON 5X A YEAR
Strike For The South
07-13-2011, 06:06
I AM TRIFLIN IM A HIGH ROLLER
I GOTS 4 KIAS AND GO TO BRANSON 5X A YEAR
Damn Branson.
It's a sad day when you realize, yes, you were in fact white trash.
It's an even sadder day when the person you have the most in common with is form the godforsaken hellhole that is Oklahoma
I love you MRD, but dang
Y no I have furrin car ann yuro vaycay?
PanzerJaeger
07-13-2011, 06:49
Who exactly is doing this?
The middle class... people who make enough to live comfortably, but not enough to spend lavishly. They do (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/05/02/focus7.html), though.
Americans don't save nearly as much as they think they do.
Fifty-nine percent of the people responding to a year-end survey by financial services company Nationwide say they have an adequate financial plan and are saving enough to meet their retirement goals.
Eighty percent of those respondents say they don't lose sleep over their finances.
Maybe they should.
Savings rates nationally are near record lows, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Americans are saving only 0.1 percent of their disposable income, one of the lowest rates since the department began tracking saving habits in 1959.
In November, that personal savings rate increased nationally to 0.3 percent, meaning that an individual making $40,000 yearly would be saving $120.
And that's despite the fact that nearly six out of every 10 employees are saving through a 401(k) or similar retirement fund, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit policy research organization.
EBRI's 2004 survey found that 45 percent of all workers in the United States say their total household assets, excluding their home, amount to less than $25,000.
That's a recipe for future hardship, but it is endemic of a borrow-now-and-pay-later attitude, says Jim Cooper, U.S. Rep. D-Nashville, Tenn.
"The old fashioned virtues of thrift and economy are gone," Cooper says.
And speaking of BMW, the company braced for a serious downturn in sales after the Great Recession as they believed the upwardly mobile who buy their cars in this country would turn towards more affordable, sensible mainstream automakers.
They just had another record month (http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/07/all-time-sales-record-for-bmw-group-in.html).
There’s a lot to be happy about in Munich these days. That’s because the BMW Group has had not only its best month ever as far as sales are concerned, but has also achieved an all-time sales record for the first half of the year.
This June, a total of 165,855 BMW, Mini and Rolls-Royce cars were delivered, an increase of 15.9% compared to the same month in 2010 (143,156 units) and also a new record for the Group. BMW sold 134,432 cars (+12.3%) and Mini 31,111 (+34.1%).
The BMW Group also enjoyed a record six-month period. From January until June, it sold 833,366 vehicles, 137,000 more than in 2010, which represents an increase of 19.7%. The BMW brand’s sales rose to 689,861 units compared to 585,750 last year, an increase of 12.3%. The X3 doubled its sales, the 5-Series remained the global leader in its class, and the 7-Series had its best-ever six-month period.
Mini’s progress was even better, as the British company witnessed a 29.8% year-to-date increase with 141,913 cars compared to 109,302 in the first half of 2010. Almost 1/3 of the buyers (more than 40,000) opted for the new Countryman and the brand expects even better results after the launch of the Coupe and the upcoming roadster.
But the best performer of the three brands of the BMW Group was Rolls-Royce: it sold a record 1,592 units representing a 64.1% increase compared to the 970 units it sold in the same period of 2010.
The BMW brands achieved a double-digit growth in all continents, with a 12.3% increase in Europe, 18.7%+ in the Americas, and 47.3%+ in Asia. The group’s best markets in the first six months of 2011 was in Germany, with 149,786 sales, followed by the US (143,521) and China (121,614), which showed an impressive increase of 61%.
Damn Branson.
It's a sad day when you realize, yes, you were in fact white trash.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Strike For The South
07-13-2011, 07:00
Wow,
I figure a drink is in order with you blokes then?
Before this whole thing comes crashing down?
I CAN INVITE ALL OF YOU FOR A DRINK B/C I AM OF AGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Samurai Waki
07-13-2011, 08:07
The elderly complain because the young are often swayed by fantastic liars-- Better to choose the devil you know than the devil you don't.
Ironside
07-13-2011, 09:32
The middle class... people who make enough to live comfortably, but not enough to spend lavishly. They do (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/05/02/focus7.html), though.
And the middle class consumer consumption is one big driving force in the US economy. That makes an interesting combination doesn't it?
Centurion1
07-13-2011, 09:44
And the middle class consumer consumption is one big driving force in the US economy. That makes an interesting combination doesn't it?
not really because these are people who overstretch themselves and cause the economy more problems in the long run and it is not like they are buying more essentials. They are purchasing luxury goods like louis vuitton purses, mercedes, and othe rnon essentials. these goods do not drive any economy in the way essential items do. Expensive vacations to Strike and MRD's wet dream of a branson vacation (lol at expensive branson vacations) do not really drive the economy. Those people having enough cash to actually purchase homes within their budgets and food fort he tables and cars within their means are what drive the american economy.
Do the sale and purchase of these luxury goods aid a capitalist market driven economy well hell yes they do. But the economy is hurt when people irresponsibly buy these goods and cannot own them without stepping outside their means. And at the end of the day a luxury good is just that a luxury. Their impact on the economy as a whole is negligible compared to sometihng like oil or corn or lumber.
Major Robert Dump
07-13-2011, 15:01
For example, I "own" three house servants Indonesia, and really I should have no more than one.
I think you guys are forgetting to place the proper blame on banks. The mortgage bubble was only partly because of idiotic borrowers, the majority of it was con artists getting FHA loans for investment properties they never intended to live in, and banks not doing their legally required duty of verifying income, residency and general application accuracy. Banks make money off of foreclosures, despite what they say.
Unfortunately, you are most likely far more responsible than the average American. Our government has made these commitments, and millions of young to middle aged people are taking expensive vacations and buying BMWs with the implicit understanding that they'll have an income stream and virtually free healthcare when they retire.
Those people I feel no pity for. It's being pretty clearly broadcast to everyone these days that you shouldn't rely on the government to take care of you later in life. If someone ignores those warnings, they will reap what they sow. The same can't be said for the current retirees though. People who are 70+ grew up being told that the system was specifically designed so that they would be able to retire with a livable income and basic medical care. I have difficulty blaming those people for not saving more money, as they were told they did not have to.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-13-2011, 20:18
Yes, I'm sure you've contributed far more to the Social Security fund than an 80-year-old retiree. :rolleyes:
And who is paying to keep Social Security alive today? I don't think it's those 80 year old people in nursing homes who crap themselves. :no:
Yes, good heavens that we actually have to care about each other. On the other hand, the old people of today tried their best to dismantle every social benefit in the world when they were in power during the me-me-me-eighties, so I don't really care about them that much. They had their choice, and they choose instant pleasure over long term gain. Screw 'em, I say.
But what is worse is of course that they can't keep their gnarled old hands from meddling with everything. A lot of them, if not most, have a firm belief that the past was a perfect paradise, and every change made to the world is inherently bad. Old people cannot stand to see young people express themselves freely in ways they did not do themselves, and to me that is sickening.
I do not see any reason whatsoever to care about social commentary from the elderly.
:2thumbsup:
Well if you want to ignore the fact that the today's elderly that are most dependent on welfare come from those segments of society that really opposed (and suffered at the hands of) the economic revolution in the 80's...
All the elderly people I know, including those in my family, would have died before they voted for Thatcher. But hey there's some angry kid on the internet thats upset because old people aren't cool so I guess they don't deserve a decent quality of life...
Thatcher wasn't that bad :laugh4:. I never said they wasn't. I'm just saying. It is there problem that they didn't save up enough for retirement, and trust me, a lot of them had the money and blew it (Trust me, my grandfather on the mother's side died in 2009 at 91 and 88 year old grandmother is still kicking, they told me how the old geezers always had money but yet they always failed to save.....)
Spend now and pay later. Don't be such a fricking liberal.
a completely inoffensive name
07-13-2011, 20:36
It is there problem
Where is the problem?
/grammarnazi
Samurai Waki
07-13-2011, 21:22
Another thing to factor in, is of course, people are living longer; but retiring at roughly the same age as they were when they were dying much younger- 20+ years worth of retirement is IMHO a little excessive, so there is a longer average draw on people who want to depend on SS. We were all sent to school when we were five years old, and of course our society expects us to start paying into Social Security by at most our early thirties--Then as long as the average person takes decent care of himself he should have at least forty years worth of time to save (I won't get into 401ks, and pensions, another beast entirely)-- of course there are other socio-economic factors included as well, such as American's insistence that the elderly need to take care of themselves-- which of course is an impossibility, so the responsibility get's bucked onto the federal government, and then same people who don't want to help their own parents/grand parents bitch that someone else has too; which of course the people who actually take care of the elderly/disabled aren't going to do it pro bono, because it may be one of the worst jobs in the world; but short of that the only other reasonable thing to do would be the euthanize your grandparents once they are unable to care for themselves--
but short of that the only other reasonable thing to do would be the euthanize your grandparents once they are unable to care for themselves--
Just cut off the Medicare, kill two birds with one stone...
:hide:
And who is paying to keep Social Security alive today? I don't think it's those 80 year old people in nursing homes who crap themselves. :no:
So, your basic point is that they don't deserve Social Security benefits because they're retired? :inquisitive:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-13-2011, 22:49
So, your basic point is that they don't deserve Social Security benefits because they're retired? :inquisitive:
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
a completely inoffensive name
07-13-2011, 22:56
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
So?
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
From Gen X down to whatever they call the kids these days, this was always going to be your fate. :shrug:
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
So, you think the Social Security system was completely wrong and never should have been created in the first place? Do you dislike all collective wealth distribution systems where some individuals take out more money than they put in?
Adrian II
07-13-2011, 23:41
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
Others paid for your first fifteen or twenty years on this earth. They should have spanked you more often, that's for sure.
AII
Reenk Roink
07-14-2011, 01:54
Who exactly is doing this?
Um, I bought a BMW... :creep: In my defense, it was slightly used and my parents gave me the money...
Strike For The South
07-14-2011, 02:29
Warman do you even hold gainful employement?
Every week FICA takes less out of my check than work does for insurance and my 401k
You'll live sweetie
Major Robert Dump
07-14-2011, 06:03
FICA is typically around 40% of what your federal is.
If you make less than 40k per year it is less per paycheck than a night at a bar.
For a person who makes the median single person income, it is far less than 1k per year.
For the median household income (usually two earners - 45k) it is less than 1500 per year. The sting really starts to take effect when you get into the 60k and up brackets, and you are shelling out @3k+ per year, or if you are married and your joing income is over 80k.
On average as a civilian, I pay @ $350 per month. On deployed status is in the neighborhood of $220. Believe me, I would rather not pay, but what options are left short of putting old folks out on the streets?
HoreTore
07-14-2011, 09:56
Um, I bought a BMW... :creep: In my defense, it was slightly used and my parents gave me the money...
My first car was an Audi, and my dad gave it to me.
Though it was an 86-model, and I got it because I bumped it in a tree during practice driving.....
And who is paying to keep Social Security alive today? I don't think it's those 80 year old people in nursing homes who crap themselves. :no:
If the .Org still exists in 2060 and we're both still alive, then I'm so going to quote this post and throw it in your face so that you can reply to it while the nurses are wiping you clean.
CountArach
07-14-2011, 13:45
I don't want to be paying for other people's retirement. :dizzy2: :stare::inquisitive::inquisitive:
Please propose a viable alternative.
Reenk Roink
07-15-2011, 01:20
My first car was an Audi, and my dad gave it to me.
Though it was an 86-model, and I got it because I bumped it in a tree during practice driving.....
Nice, Audi was my first choice, but I was a bit under for a new A4 and there weren't any good used deals like there were for BMWs.
rory_20_uk
07-15-2011, 10:09
Those people I feel no pity for. It's being pretty clearly broadcast to everyone these days that you shouldn't rely on the government to take care of you later in life. If someone ignores those warnings, they will reap what they sow. The same can't be said for the current retirees though. People who are 70+ grew up being told that the system was specifically designed so that they would be able to retire with a livable income and basic medical care. I have difficulty blaming those people for not saving more money, as they were told they did not have to.
They also grew up with the assumption that most of them would be dead before 65, and hardly any would see 80. Funding them to the level they grew up with would be very cheap - hardly any drugs whatsoever.
Please propose a viable alternative.
A much more staggered system where many expensive options are not covered whatsoever. Life long or live the highlife. But most people can't have both. The phrase "life is cheap" is wrong. Death is cheap. Life is very expensive.
~:smoking:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-15-2011, 15:08
If the .Org still exists in 2060 and we're both still alive, then I'm so going to quote this post and throw it in your face so that you can reply to it while the nurses are wiping you clean.
I'm going to take you up on that.
Please propose a viable alternative.
Pay for your own retirement? :idea2:
Skullheadhq
07-16-2011, 10:58
I believe I saw a very similiar thread in the backroom some months ago. Not sure through. But yes, not all pensioners are responsible for electing Thatcher-like politicians in office during the eigthies. Blaming entire generations, which happens in Germany with the WWII-generation as well, is utterly stupid.
rory_20_uk
07-16-2011, 11:09
Final salaries did appear very recently and were instigated by a certain generation. They were not being paid for by that generation, as it was found that they're too expensive and so are being scrapped. Now, a different generation are paying for it.
~:smoking:
InsaneApache
07-16-2011, 11:34
I'm not certain how it works in the States but I do know how it works in the UK.
When the welfare state was set up after WWII it was decided to fund pensions and the NHS through a type of taxation called National Insurance. This amounts to around 5-6% of your gross earnings. That is on top of any general taxation levied. This was not voluntary. It was compulsory.
Naive as I was at 16 when I started work, I assumed that this 5-6% was put in a pot towards my retirement pension and any medical care I might require. Of course that was complete rubbish. The money I paid back in '76 was not going to pay for me at all. It was being spent in 1976 to pay for the pensioners then.
The dishonest politicians who set up this scheme should have been locked up. Well they did with Bernie Madoff and it was exactly the same. Bread today or Jam tomorrow. Plus ca change.
InsaneApache
07-16-2011, 11:37
My first car was an Audi, and my dad gave it to me..
I hope you stuck to your principles and let any one in the area drive it anytime they wanted. :wink:
rory_20_uk
07-16-2011, 12:29
I'm not certain how it works in the States but I do know how it works in the UK.
When the welfare state was set up after WWII it was decided to fund pensions and the NHS through a type of taxation called National Insurance. This amounts to around 5-6% of your gross earnings. That is on top of any general taxation levied. This was not voluntary. It was compulsory.
Naive as I was at 16 when I started work, I assumed that this 5-6% was put in a pot towards my retirement pension and any medical care I might require. Of course that was complete rubbish. The money I paid back in '76 was not going to pay for me at all. It was being spent in 1976 to pay for the pensioners then.
The dishonest politicians who set up this scheme should have been locked up. Well they did with Bernie Madoff and it was exactly the same. Bread today or Jam tomorrow. Plus ca change.
At least they're honest with us now. NI is merely another tax. Period. Pensions will shrink as they become increasingly impossible to pay. I do not view a long term future in the UK as frankly the bits I like I can visit and by not being here I can avoid paying for the mistakes of others.
~:smoking:
Tellos Athenaios
07-16-2011, 13:57
Naive as I was at 16 when I started work, I assumed that this 5-6% was put in a pot towards my retirement pension and any medical care I might require. Of course that was complete rubbish. The money I paid back in '76 was not going to pay for me at all. It was being spent in 1976 to pay for the pensioners then.
But why did you assume so in the first place?
InsaneApache
07-16-2011, 14:09
But why did you assume so in the first place?
Probably because I was really a kid who thought he was an adult and knew it all. As I've said in previous threads, when I was 16 I knew everything. As I got older I realised how much I didn't know. I fully expect to die a complete ignoramus. :book:
Tellos Athenaios
07-16-2011, 14:20
No, I meant why did you assume that the money you put in would be spent on you instead of on the people who no longer could pretend that to be old is about experience or wisdom rather than the decay of bodily and mental faculties?
InsaneApache
07-16-2011, 14:28
Blimey. It was 35 years ago.
Going through the memory banks I probably assumed National Insurance = Life Insurance.
Wait! I remember. We were told about it at school. The lying bastards.
Tellos Athenaios
07-16-2011, 14:43
Oh. Over here I was never made to sit in class and listen to the virtues of the welfare state or how it would be somehow good for me personally... On the upside at least it's nowhere near as bad ROI compared to a habit of betting on sports matches or buying lottery tickets.
InsaneApache
07-16-2011, 15:33
IIRC it was brought up during an economics and commerce lesson.
Pay for your own retirement? :idea2:
You do realise that that essentially proposes that people go straight from work into the care home, right?
Naive as I was at 16 when I started work, I assumed that this 5-6% was put in a pot towards my retirement pension and any medical care I might require. Of course that was complete rubbish. The money I paid back in '76 was not going to pay for me at all. It was being spent in 1976 to pay for the pensioners then.
The dishonest politicians who set up this scheme should have been locked up. Well they did with Bernie Madoff and it was exactly the same. Bread today or Jam tomorrow. Plus ca change.
They've never been dishonest about it. It's a "pay-as-you" go system; you provide for today's pensioners, and tomorrow's workers pay for you. Even the name itself reflects that; when paying insurance normally, you're not paying into a pot which is then paid back out to you when you have to claim, right?
Of course, pay as you go pension schemes depend that the dependant:working population ratio does not increase, but that's a separate criticism from dishonest politicians.
rory_20_uk
07-18-2011, 21:42
You do realise that that essentially proposes that people go straight from work into the care home, right?
They've never been dishonest about it. It's a "pay-as-you" go system; you provide for today's pensioners, and tomorrow's workers pay for you. Even the name itself reflects that; when paying insurance normally, you're not paying into a pot which is then paid back out to you when you have to claim, right?
Of course, pay as you go pension schemes depend that the dependant:working population ratio does not increase, but that's a separate criticism from dishonest politicians.
Yes, if one is unable to save a lot of money then after work one goes to the carehome. Or one accepts that one enjoys oneself and then drops dead when a condition gets too bad.
The ratio lie implicitly assumes the population will tend towards infinity. The only honest state of affairs is one works, then one dies. If one is lucky there are some good times sandwiched between the two.
~:smoking:
InsaneApache
07-19-2011, 00:06
The only honest state of affairs is one works, then one dies. If one is lucky there are some good times sandwiched between the two.
:bow:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-19-2011, 20:38
Yes, if one is unable to save a lot of money then after work one goes to the carehome. Or one accepts that one enjoys oneself and then drops dead when a condition gets too bad.
The ratio lie implicitly assumes the population will tend towards infinity. The only honest state of affairs is one works, then one dies. If one is lucky there are some good times sandwiched between the two.
~:smoking:
:bow: :yes:
You do realise that that essentially proposes that people go straight from work into the care home, right?
They've never been dishonest about it. It's a "pay-as-you" go system; you provide for today's pensioners, and tomorrow's workers pay for you. Even the name itself reflects that; when paying insurance normally, you're not paying into a pot which is then paid back out to you when you have to claim, right?
Of course, pay as you go pension schemes depend that the dependant:working population ratio does not increase, but that's a separate criticism from dishonest politicians.
Not my problem.
Not my problem.
Actually, it is. Hence this thread. ~;)
Samurai Waki
07-20-2011, 01:49
Not my problem.
It's going to be whether you like it or not. :mellow:
a completely inoffensive name
07-20-2011, 07:08
Yes, we should consider ourselves privileged that our lives may not be imposed a purpose of solely working to death...if we are lucky.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.