Baby Boomers Suck and They Are Going to Screw Us All (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

Yeesh.

[URL="http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/guaranteeing-retirement-income/528-retirement-account-balances-by-income-even-the-highest-earners-dont-have-enough.html"]Retirement Account Balances by Income: Even the Highest Earners Don't Have Enough[/url]

...Three quarters of near retirees (ages 50 to 64) have annual incomes below $52,201, with an average total retirement account balance of $26,395 . When stretched out into an annuity over an average retirement lifetime, this sum does not provide a significant addition to a monthly Social Security benefit (see Table 1.) Further, the median value of retirement account balances for half of near retirees is zero, meaning that over half of this group has no retirement savings.

Individuals with incomes over $52,201 per year have more in their retirement accounts, but their balances are not high. Their average retirement account balance for this income group is $105,012. Because only a few people have very high balances, the median balance is much lower; 50 percent of people ages 50-64 in the top 25 percent of the income distribution have retirement account balances of only $52,000....

For cripes sakes. I am 29 and I have a higher retirement savings than that, and I did that on a low income.

These idiots are the highest-income generation in human history. And they blew it all. And I guaran-frickin-tee you when the bill comes due for their profligacy they are going to expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

Worst. Generation. Ever.

 

[haymarket]

The outright prejudice that some younger people have for the Boom generation is very very revealing of their insecurities and resentment of them. My good friend Turtle might even bring out the ENVY CARD in that discussion. :roll:

How are Boomers going "to screw us all"? You never quite get around to defending your thread title and premise.

Who exactly is asking you to "pick up the tab"?

 

[Dickieboy]

Yeesh.



For cripes sakes. I am 29 and I have a higher retirement savings than that, and I did that on a low income.

These idiots are the highest-income generation in human history. And they blew it all. And I guaran-frickin-tee you when the bill comes due for their profligacy they are going to expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

Worst. Generation. Ever.

Yep, we 'blew it all'...on our kids...feel privilaged as we did not receive the same treatment which is WHY you were treated thusly...rightly or wrongly.

 

[haymarket]

Yep, we 'blew it all'...on our kids...feel privilaged as we did not receive the same treatment which is WHY you were treated thusly...rightly or wrongly.

Excellent point. I was born in 49 and that makes me one of the hated Boomers that cp feels is going to screw his generation. The whole idea I grew up with was that each generation should make it better for the next generation. My folks were the GI generation and both had to drop out of school to work to help support their folks. That was very common in the Thirties and Forties. I had the luxury of finishing high school and did not have to do that. I worked my way though college paying for it myself while having the benefit of living in my parents home free of charge. When my kids - born in 76 and 78 - went to college, I was happy to pay for it myself so they would not have one dime in loans to pay off.

Yes, we did spend much of it on our kids. And we would have it no other way.

 

[ecofarm]

Good thread title. I'd like to see them come in here and defend themselves.

 

[ecofarm]

The outright prejudice that some younger people have for the Boom generation is very very revealing of their insecurities and resentment of them. My good friend Turtle might even bring out the ENVY CARD in that discussion. :roll:

How are Boomers going "to screw us all"? You never quite get around to defending your thread title and premise.

Who exactly is asking you to "pick up the tab"?

What? You sound guilty.

Yep, we 'blew it all'...

You blew the cash? Well, at least that's honest.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is a very narrow (WRONG?) way of looking at the elderly ASSETS statistics. This ONLY includes wealth STILL IN "retirement" accounts, which are a wonderful tax shelter for those that are WORKING. Many do not use these SELECT tax sheltered investment vehicles AFTER they retire. Some other ways of looking at the TOTAL assets of the elderly/retired in the U.S. follow:

The Average Net Worth of Americans: Where Do You Stand? | Money Relationship

Census Offers Statistics on Older Americans

Go to end of this link Distribution of Weath: note seniors nearly DOUBLE the average in U.S. in general.
Wealth in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generation Screwed | Slog

Wealth Gap Between Young and Old Grows - Planning to Retire (usnews.com)

 

[haymarket]

What? You sound guilty.




You blew the cash? Well, at least that's honest.

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Perhaps you can blame that on a teacher who was a Boomer? :roll::lamo

 

[haymarket]

I used to do battle on another site for several years and discovered that among some right libertarians who were also in their Twenties - there was a strong prejudice against Boomers. This would come out in debates about Social Security, Medicare and other issues. One particular poster who I will call CG was as adamant as they come that baby boomers were the bane of his existence and would destroy the nation.

Eventually it came out that his folks divorced when he was a pre-teen and he blamed his father for all sort of things. the baby boom generation became a stand-in for his father and he took his resentment and anger for his father on his fathers entire generation. Not exactly a strong intellectual basis for such views.

I am NOT categorizing ALL or even MOST of such persons in that group as such - but there is a disturbing number who do pop up from time to time.

 

[longview]

Excellent point. I was born in 49 and that makes me one of the hated Boomers that cp feels is going to screw his generation. The whole idea I grew up with was that each generation should make it better for the next generation. My folks were the GI generation and both had to drop out of school to work to help support their folks. That was very common in the Thirties and Forties. I had the luxury of finishing high school and did not have to do that. I worked my way though college paying for it myself while having the benefit of living in my parents home free of charge. When my kids - born in 76 and 78 - went to college, I was happy to pay for it myself so they would not have one dime in loans to pay off.

Yes, we did spend much of it on our kids. And we would have it no other way.

I did not think I would ever agree with haymarket on anything, but making sure your kids are setup to be successful,
On that I can agree.
An education is one of the few things you can give your children that will pay dividends for the rest of their lives.
If our children do well, it means we have done one of our most important jobs correctly.
I spent a lot on my kids education, and don't regret a penny.
If more parents prepared their children better, Our country might be in better shape.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The outright prejudice that some younger people have for the Boom generation is very very revealing of their insecurities and resentment of them. My good friend Turtle might even bring out the ENVY CARD in that discussion. :roll:

How are Boomers going "to screw us all"? You never quite get around to defending your thread title and premise.

Who exactly is asking you to "pick up the tab"?

Good question, as this has NOTHING to do with SS/Medicare benefits as they are NOT means tested (yet). Perhaps the real fear is that the SS system may NOT be saved (for the young) by being means tested. It is the ME generation that borrowed, spent and enjoyed the SS "trust me" fund and now OWE that back to the seniors (with interest) that they borrowed it from.

 

[haymarket]

Good question, as this has NOTHING to do with SS/Medicare benefits as they are NOT means tested (yet). Perhaps the real fear is that the SS system may NOT be saved (for the young) by being means tested. It is the ME generation that borrowed, spent and enjoyed the SS "trust me" fund and now OWE that back to the seniors (with interest) that they borrowed it from.

Good point. When I see many younger folks shrug their shoulders in resignation and mutter that "social security will not be there for me" I cannot help but seeing the words SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY in giant letters carved into the side of a cliffside. If the young can be convinced that social security will not be there for them and that attitude seeps into their political expectations, it only makes it that much easier to screw them out of the money down the road. They are helping to cheat themselves by their acceptance of doom and gloom predictions.

 

[ecofarm]

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

How far did you get in school, smarty?

 

[MaggieD]

Good question, as this has NOTHING to do with SS/Medicare benefits as they are NOT means tested (yet). Perhaps the real fear is that the SS system may NOT be saved (for the young) by being means tested. It is the ME generation that borrowed, spent and enjoyed the SS "trust me" fund and now OWE that back to the seniors (with interest) that they borrowed it from.

Social Security benefits should never be means tested. What an awful thought. Medicare premiums are adjusted depending upon income -- not enough in my opinion, but it is most definitely adjusted.

 

[longview]

I have thought much about Social Security, both it's availability and it's political impact.
When politicians say SS is the third rail of politics, I think that was because it was an income stream.
Now that SS has become an income drain, look for changes.
I see means testing coming soon. They did it not so long ago if you worked before age 70,
so it is not unthinkable for them to start again.
As far as SS being a safety net, that would make the most since.
As for myself, it would be nice to someday collect some of my SS payments, but I plan as if it will
not be there. (or hopefully I will be means tested out.)
I am conservative, but am also a realist, My wife and I only produced 2 children, and so did many others.
Replacement is insufficient growth to sustain a system like SS.

 

[VanceMack]

The boomers did good things and bad things. Like every generation, some prepared for a future and some didnt. Todays generation will by and large be FAR less prepared than the boomer generation. Im a tweener-dont qualify as a boomer and I raised 4 Gen-Xers. All 4 of my kids were raised with a strong sense of values and work ethic. Some...like CPWill who has already started saving and prepping for his future...will do fine. But the majority? Nah. You think the boomers are ****ing things up? Geez, son...wait til you start getting the bill for the people that became adults over the last decade. You dont think the Jerry Springer generation of kids are going to live charmed lives do you?

I think we can look to the messages promoted by the government to really see the problems ALL generations face. Social Security will take care of you. Social Security will be there for you. Its not your fault your life sucks. Come let momma give you a hug and a sugartit and make stuff all better for you. Will...Ill stack the boomers up against the children of the 90s and 2000 any day.

 

[haymarket]

How far did you get in school, smarty?

Fifth week of the fourth grade....... but it was a very tough school and I had learned quite a bit by that time.

 

[haymarket]

I have thought much about Social Security, both it's availability and it's political impact.
When politicians say SS is the third rail of politics, I think that was because it was an income stream.
Now that SS has become an income drain, look for changes.
I see means testing coming soon. They did it not so long ago if you worked before age 70,
so it is not unthinkable for them to start again.
As far as SS being a safety net, that would make the most since.
As for myself, it would be nice to someday collect some of my SS payments, but I plan as if it will
not be there. (or hopefully I will be means tested out.)
I am conservative, but am also a realist, My wife and I only produced 2 children, and so did many others.
Replacement is insufficient growth to sustain a system like SS.

Social Security has never been means tested. Perhaps you are confusing losing parts of your social security in years when you make too much or retire early rather than taking the full benefit? Means testing is generally accepted to be defined as an evaluation of a persons economic situation and if they do not need the program to survive, then they can be reduced or cut altogether. It would be similar to standards to get on welfare. Like Maggie said - it is a horrible idea.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Social Security benefits should never be means tested. What an awful thought. Medicare premiums are adjusted depending upon income -- not enough in my opinion, but it is most definitely adjusted.

Adjusting (means testing) SS benefits such that they do not produce an income exceeding 250% of the maximum SS benefit is reasonable, even Ron Paul would likely agree with that. The alternative is to keep increasing the retirement age or limitting the COLA adjustments (both have been done recently), which is far worse for most seniors (and future seniors). SS was ALWAYS meant to SUPPLEMENT retirement income, if someone has $5K/month comming in already then why add another $1.5K in SS?

 

[haymarket]

Adjusting (means testing) SS benefits such that they do not produce an income exceeding 250% of the maximum SS benefit is reasonable, even Ron Paul would likely agree with that. The alternative is to keep increasing the retirement age or limitting the COLA adjustments (both have been done recently), which is far worse for most seniors (and future seniors).

Could you use some actual dollars and cents figures to illustrate how this would work please?

 

[MaggieD]

Adjusting (means testing) SS benefits such that they do not produce an income exceeding 250% of the maximum SS benefit is reasonable, even Ron Paul would likely agree with that. The alternative is to keep increasing the retirement age or limitting the COLA adjustments (both have been done recently), which is far worse for most seniors (and future seniors).

Today's SS maximum benefit is about $28,000. So you're saying that if someone earns (in other income) $70,000, they would receive no SS benefits. Well, okay. But I want my money back. What you are proposing is that those making $70K or above will pay a straight 12% more in effective income tax than those below that threshhold by contributing to a program from which they cannot collect. That is never going to happen.

 

[ecofarm]

Fifth week of the fourth grade...

Do you blame a Boomer teacher?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Could you use some actual dollars and cents figures to illustrate how this would work please?

Sure. Assuming that the maximum SS benefit is $2,000/month, then your SS benefits would be limitted to sustaining a retirement income of up to $5,000/month. If you had $4,000/month income from other sources then your SS benefit would be limitted to $1000/month. If you had $3,000/month income (or less) from other sources then you would still get your full SS benefit. Someone making $8,000/month does not need "supplemental" retirement income.

 

[haymarket]

Do you blame a Boomer teacher?

My teachers were GI generation or even older - perhaps some from the Silent Generation.

 

[MaggieD]

My teachers were GI generation or even older - perhaps some from the Silent Generation.

How long are you going to let this string play out?? :rofl