believer;664441 wrote:Yes we ALL need to pitch in, but PLEASE stop the incessant whining and the blame game.

The blame does not rest solely on any generation's shoulders. To date, it doesn't rest much on Gen Y, but only because they haven't been around that long. Given the nature of Gen Y so far, I'm sure we'll **** things up even further when we get the opportunity to do so. I'm not blaming the Boomers, the Depression Generation, or any prior to that, solely. I'm not blaming any generation after that as well. The PEOPLE who share the blame are the ones who never did anything about it. The ones who paid in, waited it out, accepted their checks, and never tried to change anything, regardless of whether or not they agreed with it. If that's not you (and I'm not at all implying that it is, believer), then I'm not talking to you. If you've actually pushed against the grain or bucked the system, then I applaud you.

This isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a blame game. This discussion is about the result of the birthday lottery ... and a game of 'economic ruin' hot potato.

Al Bundy;664620 wrote:If someone is in their early 60's and you suddenly take away 40% of their retirement, there is no way they can make up that difference in a few years. Many of them would be forced to go on a social program to make up the difference.

It's not like this problem just sprang up out of nowhere, plan for it. The numbers are out there, just not talked about. It's a moral hazard, people will play ignorance, spend like crazy, etc..because they know the government will step in and take care of them.

I say FUCK EM. Eat fucking bread and water for the rest of your life. Don't like it? Sorry, but not my problem.

And obviously the cuts would be phased over a certain period of time, so someone in their 60's would probably get 80% of their benefits, someone in their 50's would get 70%, etc..so that the average benefits cut would be 40%. But I wasn't kidding about the above part, people need to start accepting responsibility for their actions. I mean talk about a pampered generation, sheesh.

Al Bundy;664620 wrote:If someone is in their early 60's and you suddenly take away 40% of their retirement, there is no way they can make up that difference in a few years. Many of them would be forced to go on a social program to make up the difference.

And if you take $250,000 away from someone over the course of their professional life and then give them 0% of their retirement? That's what we're looking forward to.

sleeper;664877 wrote:It's not like this problem just sprang up out of nowhere, plan for it. The numbers are out there, just not talked about. It's a moral hazard, people will play ignorance, spend like crazy, etc..because they know the government will step in and take care of them.

I say FUCK EM. Eat fucking bread and water for the rest of your life. Don't like it? Sorry, but not my problem.

And obviously the cuts would be phased over a certain period of time, so someone in their 60's would probably get 80% of their benefits, someone in their 50's would get 70%, etc..so that the average benefits cut would be 40%. But I wasn't kidding about the above part, people need to start accepting responsibility for their actions. I mean talk about a pampered generation, sheesh.

LOL at Sleeper. Are you aware of the fact that many, many, many Boomers were spouting the same vitriol back when we were your age? Way back in the late 50's early 60's....the choice was either guns or butter. And then LBJ said that we could have guns AND butter. And then Nixon came to power and said "fuck this" accountability crap and took the US off the gold standard.

And why single out Social Security? Social Security is just one small item that defies mathematical logic. What about the rest of the unfunded liabilities which fall outside the social security chasm?

Your a business major right? Certainly after reading a few chapters from Samuelson, the good professor has explained that the aggregate future debt is over 100 trillion dollars, right? Google "unfunded liabilities..United States".


Then go out tonight and get a good drunk on. Because as Belushi put it...."it just doesn't matter."

And why single out Social Security? Social Security is just one small item that defies mathematical logic. What about the rest of the unfunded liabilities which fall outside the social security chasm?

In most of my posts, I'm not talking solely about SS, I'm talking about the unfunded liabilities of the entire US debt. I don't think its 100 trillion dollars, but depending on where you look, its somewhere around 70.7 trillion.

I agree though, we are fucked, thanks.

Al Bundy;664620 wrote:If someone is in their early 60's and you suddenly take away 40% of their retirement, there is no way they can make up that difference in a few years. Many of them would be forced to go on a social program to make up the difference.

If you look at what some Boomers have posted on this thread, they even admit to believing the same thing about SS back when they were our age. So they knew SS was going to have problems in the future, therefore they should have planned accordingly like many of us are now. If SS is around when I'm older, great, if not, I'll be fine without it.

I just don't like paying into a system in which I see no return or benefit (as others on this thread have stated).

I might argue the last 10 years or so, maybe more, and certainly the next 10 that the current generation has seen little to no wage growth, higher education costs, and a job sector that increasingly offers no pension and little to no retirement benefits in exchange for less job security and extended periods of joblessness. So they have been, and will continue, to "sacrifice" for the poor economic and fiscal decisions made the last 20-30 years. And with that I say, share the pain - your benefits need to be cut.

You have the boomers who benefitted while these imbalances grew, and you have everyone suffering when the bubbles burst. The difference is the 20, 30 and 40-somethings did not benefit nearly as much and not at all for the younger ones. It is what it is. Your Social Security fund, just like equity in your house, was kind of a paper gain and it's taken a hit. With other assets and savings accounts worth half of what they were, well SS probably shouldn't be 100% of par.

Without getting into a huge debate, the counter-argument is simply that a significant reduction in benefits is going to noticeably dent economic growth. This isn't your typical wasteful govt spending - a check goes to a beneficiary and 100% goes into the economy for food, rent, gas, etc...We probably should not accept a reduction in SS benefits in lieu of cutting real pork. Seriously, if SS is going away then WTF am I getting for the 40%+ of my paycheck (not counting state & local taxes) the govt takes?

dwccrew;665128 wrote:If you look at what some Boomers have posted on this thread, they even admit to believing the same thing about SS back when they were our age. So they knew SS was going to have problems in the future, therefore they should have planned accordingly like many of us are now. If SS is around when I'm older, great, if not, I'll be fine without it.

That is true and I'm guilty of that. But here's the bottom-line: My grandparents "enjoyed" full benefits, my parents are enjoying full benefits, and I've paid by mandate and through no choice of my own a quarter of a million and counting into the "system" for 4 decades. Now the Gen X and Y-ers want me to "sacrifice" for the greater good.

I have some modest 401K and a pension plan to back-up SS but I have to admit that after a couple of divorces and job shifting (factory closings), my private savings have taken a severe beating. And if you Gen X and Y-ers think you're immune from the pitfalls of life....well we'll see.

If the Feds confiscate 40% of my federally mandated confiscation, I'm going to be one of those retirees tapping into Food Stamps and an occasional welfare check that Al Bundy infers to. Or at least I'm going to be that greeter dude at Wal Mart for 20 hours a week so I can afford my cheese & mac box dinners.

I'm not asking Gen X and Y-ers to feel sorry for me. But if you think that cuts in SS are going to make the SS problem go away, think again. The costs will simply shift to other public assistance programs. It's a wash.

Finally to the Gen X and Y-ers who see the writing on the wall and who are taking steps to be "self-sufficient" all I can say is good for you. But I have a hunch that most of your generations will behave like the Boomers. When you're young it's tempting to think "I'll live for today and save for retirement later" and then all of a sudden life catches up. Then it'll be the Gen Z-ers blaming the greed of the Gen X and Y-ers for the country's poor financial condition.

It's much easier to call you a selfish POS than to actually debate anything with you. It's been 9 pages and you're still stuck on this "I paid into the system, I'm getting mine back".

I'm not even giving you an opinion, I'm telling you the REALITY. You will see your benefits reduced, PERIOD. Just like my generation will have to sacrifice 100% of their contributions to SS, you will also have to sacrifice part of yours. Again, this is REALITY. I don't know how else to lay it out for you, and your ignoring of my request for you to explain the numbers only further signifies your complete ignorance on this subject.

Without getting into a huge debate, the counter-argument is simply that a significant reduction in benefits is going to noticeably dent economic growth. This isn't your typical wasteful govt spending - a check goes to a beneficiary and 100% goes into the economy for food, rent, gas, etc...We probably should not accept a reduction in SS benefits in lieu of cutting real pork. Seriously, if SS is going away then WTF am I getting for the 40%+ of my paycheck (not counting state & local taxes) the govt takes?

The problem is, pork really isn't that big of a problem. Just getting rid of pork would get rid of approximately 1% of the problem, which is irrelevant. If you want to fix the problem, and I've stated this many times on this thread you have to do 1 or more likely both of the following:

1. Raise Taxes
2. Cut significantly in these programs: SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense

That's it.

sleeper;665511 wrote:It's much easier to call you a selfish POS than to actually debate anything with you. It's been 9 pages and you're still stuck on this "I paid into the system, I'm getting mine back".

I'm not even giving you an opinion, I'm telling you the REALITY. You will see your benefits reduced, PERIOD. Just like my generation will have to sacrifice 100% of their contributions to SS, you will also have to sacrifice part of yours. Again, this is REALITY. I don't know how else to lay it out for you, and your ignoring of my request for you to explain the numbers only further signifies your complete ignorance on this subject.

If you suddenly cut the benefits of those a generation older than us, and they get other forms of income from social programs, how does that help us in our 20s and 30s? We will be paying for it either way. I still haven't seen a plan to help the 60 year who will retire in a few years. It is easy to say cut benefits by 30%,40%,50%, etc., but it is not realistic.

Al Bundy;665520 wrote:If you suddenly cut the benefits of those a generation older than us, and they get other forms of income from social programs, how does that help us in our 20s and 30s? We will be paying for it either way. I still haven't seen a plan to help the 60 year who will retire in a few years. It is easy to say cut benefits by 30%,40%,50%, etc., but it is not realistic.

Sorry? Who's problem is it that they didn't properly save for retirement?

I already addressed this in another post on this thread, go read it again. I did want to add, that cuts of 40% are considering we don't significantly raise taxes, which I assume that we will. Again, who's paying for that? My generation. Thanks.

Al Bundy;665520 wrote:... and they get other forms of income from social programs ...

This part needs changed. If cutting off Social Security only begets other social programs to increase, then you're right; it helps little or none. If those social programs don't exist?

sleeper;665524 wrote:Sorry? Who's problem is it that they didn't properly save for retirement?

I already addressed this in another post on this thread, go read it again. I did want to add, that cuts of 40% are considering we don't significantly raise taxes, which I assume that we will. Again, who's paying for that? My generation. Thanks.

They were forced in SS. Until recently the contribution limit to an IRA was only $2000. Many of that generation worked in factories, steel mills, etc. whose pension plans were severely cut or completely gone. Other retirement options that we have weren't around for most of their working career.

Al Bundy;665534 wrote:They were forced in SS. Until recently the contribution limit to an IRA was only $2000.

Regarding this above...why are there limits to what people can save to begin with? I think the maximum 401K contribution for 2010 was around $15,000. IF the gubmint is truly behind people saving for their retirement, and thus likely reducing their need for future public assistance, then why not get out of their way and let them save, save, save?

I know the answer, I'm trying to demonstrate how these elitists talk out of their mouth and their ass at the exact same time. It's the same reason they have a Death Tax. "Oh, you can keep some of what you made, but if you make "too much" (as defined as some pinhead elitist acamadecian brainiac), then the government deserves their "fair share" (once again, as defined by some pinhead elitist acamedician brainiac)."

Al Bundy;665534 wrote:They were forced in SS. Until recently the contribution limit to an IRA was only $2000. Many of that generation worked in factories, steel mills, etc. whose pension plans were severely cut or completely gone. Other retirement options that we have weren't around for most of their working career.

DING! Now some reality and truth are being spoken.

BGFalcons82;665552 wrote:Regarding this above...why are there limits to what people can save to begin with? I think the maximum 401K contribution for 2010 was around $15,000. IF the gubmint is truly behind people saving for their retirement, and thus likely reducing their need for future public assistance, then why not get out of their way and let them save, save, save?

I know the answer, I'm trying to demonstrate how these elitists talk out of their mouth and their ass at the exact same time. It's the same reason they have a Death Tax. "Oh, you can keep some of what you made, but if you make "too much" (as defined as some pinhead elitist acamadecian brainiac), then the government deserves their "fair share" (once again, as defined by some pinhead elitist acamedician brainiac)."

DING! And some more truth.

Keep it going. You're on a roll.

BGFalcons82;665552 wrote:Regarding this above...why are there limits to what people can save to begin with? I think the maximum 401K contribution for 2010 was around $15,000. IF the gubmint is truly behind people saving for their retirement, and thus likely reducing their need for future public assistance, then why not get out of their way and let them save, save, save?

I know the answer, I'm trying to demonstrate how these elitists talk out of their mouth and their ass at the exact same time. It's the same reason they have a Death Tax. "Oh, you can keep some of what you made, but if you make "too much" (as defined as some pinhead elitist acamadecian brainiac), then the government deserves their "fair share" (once again, as defined by some pinhead elitist acamedician brainiac)."

Because these tax vehicles provide consumption tax treatment within our income tax and therefore are inconsistent with the internal norms of the tax code. Yes, yes I know many people argue for a consumption tax (most americans effectively already live under one but I digress) but I'm merely pointing out why we have limits on such contributions.

The reality is that such tax advantage structures have down little to increase savings as with many other areas the tax code has proven largely inefficient at guiding preferable social outcomes.

BoatShoes;665562 wrote:Because these tax vehicles provide consumption tax treatment within our income tax and therefore are inconsistent with the internal norms of the tax code.

Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Too much magic elixir last night

To be brief...I can't get my mind around 401K plans being part of a consumption tax treatment. Is it explainable in a hundred words or less?

BoatShoes;665562 wrote:The reality is that such tax advantage structures have down little to increase savings as with many other areas the tax code has proven largely inefficient at guiding preferable social outcomes.

Suffice to say that with the exception of those who lived through the Great Depression, most people - regardless of generation - do not feel much immediate need to save for future use.

We have been born and raised in a materialistic consumer driven society. It's rarely about what do we need to live within our means.

It's all about having that $250,000 house on a $35,000 salary, it's about driving the $35,000 loaded SUV rather than the $10,000 econo-box, it's about buying the $3,000 60" Samsung HDTV rather than settling on the $300 Emerson 32" model, it's about being first in line to scarf up the latest mind-numbing & time-wasting video game, it's about having an iPhone or Droid instead of the basic phone supplied for free with your mobile phone package, and on and on.

And this all-about-me mentality effects the Gen X and Y-ers as much if not more so than those greedy, selfish SOB Boomers...Mr. Sleeper.

So - YES - the Feds confiscated my money against my will, I want my money back.

Sorry...had to rant!

believer;665383 wrote:That is true and I'm guilty of that. But here's the bottom-line: My grandparents "enjoyed" full benefits, my parents are enjoying full benefits, and I've paid by mandate and through no choice of my own a quarter of a million and counting into the "system" for 4 decades. Now the Gen X and Y-ers want me to "sacrifice" for the greater good.

I have some modest 401K and a pension plan to back-up SS but I have to admit that after a couple of divorces and job shifting (factory closings), my private savings have taken a severe beating. And if you Gen X and Y-ers think you're immune from the pitfalls of life....well we'll see.

If the Feds confiscate 40% of my federally mandated confiscation, I'm going to be one of those retirees tapping into Food Stamps and an occasional welfare check that Al Bundy infers to. Or at least I'm going to be that greeter dude at Wal Mart for 20 hours a week so I can afford my cheese & mac box dinners.

I'm not asking Gen X and Y-ers to feel sorry for me. But if you think that cuts in SS are going to make the SS problem go away, think again. The costs will simply shift to other public assistance programs. It's a wash.

Finally to the Gen X and Y-ers who see the writing on the wall and who are taking steps to be "self-sufficient" all I can say is good for you. But I have a hunch that most of your generations will behave like the Boomers. When you're young it's tempting to think "I'll live for today and save for retirement later" and then all of a sudden life catches up. Then it'll be the Gen Z-ers blaming the greed of the Gen X and Y-ers for the country's poor financial condition.

I am not asking the Boomer generation to be the only ones to take cuts, my generation will also have to make sacrifices. Everything you are saying i.e. you've been forced to pay into a system for 40 years, the same thing is being forced upon our generation; the difference is we most likely won't get the return on our investment that the Boomers will at no fault of our own. So I think it is only right that everyone takes a reduction to right the ship.

dwccrew;665586 wrote:I am not asking the Boomer generation to be the only ones to take cuts, my generation will also have to make sacrifices. Everything you are saying i.e. you've been forced to pay into a system for 40 years, the same thing is being forced upon our generation; the difference is we most likely won't get the return on our investment that the Boomers will at no fault of our own. So I think it is only right that everyone takes a reduction to right the ship.

I completely understand. All I'm asking you Gen X and Y-ers is to put your money where your mouth is. Pave the way. Set the example. Start saving for your futures. Stop being so consumer driven. Vote for politicians courageous enough to do what is necessary to right the ship as opposed to being instrumental in voting in big spending politicians like Obama.

Show me your generations are willing to do these "sacrifices" and then I'll be willing to set my sites a little lower.

Meantime...you'll excuse me if I think that my confiscated money belongs to me.

believer;665590 wrote:I completely understand. All I'm asking you Gen X and Y-ers is to put your money where your mouth is. Pave the way. Set the example. Start saving for your futures. Stop being so consumer driven. Vote for politicians courageous enough to do what is necessary to right the ship.

Show me your generations are willing to do these "sacrifices" and then I'll be willing to set my sites a little lower.

Meantime...you'll excuse me if I think that my confiscated money belongs to me.

Fair enough. I don't blame you for feeling that way, because we feel the same way, it's just not realistic at this point (someone is going to get screwwed and no one wants to be that group). I am doing my part to try and "pave the way" by saving and investing (as I posted earlier in this thread). I can only hope that others in my generation are doing the same. I vote for politicians that claim or have proven themselves as fiscal conservatives. Personally, I am not very consumer driven. I don't own many "toys" such as electronics and I don't spend a lot on clothing. Just my perogative, that kind of stuff doesn't interest me that much.

dwccrew;665602 wrote:Fair enough. I don't blame you for feeling that way, because we feel the same way, it's just not realistic at this point (someone is going to get screwwed and no one wants to be that group). I am doing my part to try and "pave the way" by saving and investing (as I posted earlier in this thread). I can only hope that others in my generation are doing the same. I vote for politicians that claim or have proven themselves as fiscal conservatives. Personally, I am not very consumer driven. I don't own many "toys" such as electronics and I don't spend a lot on clothing. Just my perogative, that kind of stuff doesn't interest me that much.

I can relate to this. For example I own an off-brand 32" HDTV only because my 15 year old 26" standard finally died. I don't waste much time watching TV. I also drive a Huyndai Accent...not because I can't afford more luxurious wheels...I just don't have a need to be noticed for the kind of transportation I drive.

But a lot of my Boomer friends are all about judging each other on how much their toys cost....and I see the same thing happening with your generation.

I have hope for all our futures because it's good to know that there are sensible young people like yourself out there who can see beyond the superficial.

Al Bundy;665534 wrote:They were forced in SS. Until recently the contribution limit to an IRA was only $2000. Many of that generation worked in factories, steel mills, etc. whose pension plans were severely cut or completely gone. Other retirement options that we have weren't around for most of their working career.

And so is my generation. Let me ask you, if I choose not to save for retirement and rely solely on SS, who's fault is it when I can't pay the bills?

Also, pretending that the IRA was the only investment vehicle for retirement is a joke. It's almost as much of a joke as trying to pretend their careers somehow hindered them from saving money every month instead of blowing it on crap they don't need.

believer wrote:You all act is if I'm oblivious to "the numbers." I'm not that stupid folks. I know the numbers and what they mean.

sleeper wrote:Ok, then what do they mean? I want you to tell me what your interpretation of the numbers is because I really do not believe that you have a flippin' clue what the numbers mean.

Still waiting btw. I'm just an ignorant 23 year old, so what do I know? Enlighten me, oh wise one.