Crashrat

Gen X, Y, and whatever... Remember how you were told that social security was going to be there for you? The Republicans were evil for suggesting you were going to get screwed?

http://bluehampshire.com/diary/10310...broad-daylight

Old Yeller

If you think social security is going to be the basis for your retirement, you're screwed to begin with. Even if you were retiring now, it would not be enough to sustain you. Why would you expect it to be when Gen Xers get to the age to draw?

Americans would be far better off saving for their own retirement, but then that would mean they have to give up all the frills that they don't want to save/wait for. Americans, by and large, are living in the moment and counting on the government to support them when they get old. What's wrong with THAT picture? You can buy into the spewing from either side, but what it boils down to is that WE are the problem.

Crashrat

No, I don't think SS will be a basis for retirement, but that doesn't mean I want the government taking it away. I've been paying into this system for about 30 years so, yeah, I think it's ok to expect some of it to come back my way if I'm fortunate enough to live into retirement.

Would Boomers want it taken away? Would it be cool to retroactively seize money older Americans have received because they were granted SS at 62 instead of 70?

If you're going to kill it, cut it off with people who haven't paid into the system or offer some buyout for those who have HAD to put cash into it on every paycheck.

Old Yeller

Well, let's not kid ourselves. The money we are paying in now isn't being held for us in a trust or something. it's out the door to the current retirees as soon as we pay it. it's a dangerous game of "pay it forward" that the governement started so many years ago. Somewhere along the way the entire thing will have to collapse under it's own weight.

I don't trust the government to handle anything for me, and can't imagine why anyone would. Over the years they've proven themselves to be terrible at it. They allow people to find loopholes to take advantage of it, and in the end, those of us that pay taxes get reamed in the tookus.

Just my cynical opinion though.

lazn

I have only ever viewed my SS payments as a gift to my grandparents and to some extent parents and aunts/uncles.

It is the only way I can view it and not be angry about it. I know I will not get a single dime of it, or if I do, by then the dollar will be so devalued that the pittance I get per month won't even buy stale bread.

In all honesty SS was people stealing from their grandkids through big government, but it was kinda needed since the kids were not stepping up and doing the right thing for their elders.

Crashrat

You know, I'm finding it a lot more difficult to be a liberal these days.

The thing that gets me is we’ve gone beyond the “locked box” days when extras funds were needed to make sure Boomers got their social security because there were fewer Gen Xers in the system. The Boomers’ kids – Gen Y – are even larger than the Boomers in terms of sheer population (and are in the workforce), so there should be enough new money in the system to keep it floating. Unless we’re already accepting that the standard of living that we’ve gotten used to will never repeat itself – that is, that the next generation will make so little that the money stolen from their paychecks won’t support seniors in any sort of comfortable lifestyle so we need to increase the number of people in the system.

Crashrat

I think that with a little effort, people 35 and older will still see some social security, Lazn. Beyond that, probably not, but it's at least possible that some of us will get some of our money back. Median life expectancy is 74 right now, so if they push the age to 70 they are effectively killing the program.

lazn

Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.....1909.2003.png

There was a small peak in the 80's yes when boomers started having kids in mass, but it never reached the boomer levels.

Crashrat

That is the most confusing wikipedia page I've ever seen. Here's a snapshot:

http://libinfo.csueastbay.edu/staff/...L/demograp.htm

Keep in mind that the 1961-64 group called Boomers are actually now being reclassified as Gen Jones. The 76-78 million mark used for Baby Boomers is way off. If Gen Jones is added to the Gen X total -- and why not? -- there are more Xers than Boomers.

Ah! But more to the point, there are 70.4 million or so Gen Yers.

lazn

So only if you split the boomers up is that true..
http://geography.suite101.com/articl...en_y_and_gen_z

Crashrat

It's always going to depend on how you slice them. The best source would be the census. You have to figure in a mortality rate for Boomers, too, of course. I expect the census would have this, but maybe not. Even the high of 78 million is based on the birth rate, I believe.

In any case, we've had the same sort of ups and downs throughout the last century with highs (Greatest), lows (Silents), highs (Boomers), lows (Xers), highs (Yers), Lows (Gen Z, though that name will change)... The real crisis was at the start, when cash had to be generated out of nowhere to pay the Greatest Gen.

Scooberhawk

It's a Ponzi scheme. The government is doing what Bernie Madoff did.

autoteach

this is why I steal from the old people when they fall asleep on the park benches. That will teach them!