Posted on 11/21/2013 12:31:21 PM PST by posterchild
Grandma’s gettin’ greedy — or so some people might say.
New data published by the Congressional Budget Office show elderly households receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, while all other households pay more in taxes than they get back. The data are from 2006, the most recent year the necessary numbers were available. The general findings aren't surprising, since people stop working and paying payroll taxes when they retire, and Social Security and Medicare are chiefly meant to benefit the elderly in the first place.
But the benefit gap between elderly and non-elderly households may seem lopsided to some. The popularity of programs such as Medicare and Social Security shows the U.S. has met the goal, originating in the 1930s, of building a robust safety net for seniors and others unable to fully support themselves. But demographics have changed dramatically since those big entitlements went into effect, with fewer young people now financing the benefits received by many more older people. Many feel the imbalance amounts to generational theft, as a disproportionate and growing share of national wealth goes to supporting the lifestyles of the elderly rather than cultivating future generations.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
“You existed before me therefore I must serve you.”
I have five children and a bunch of grand kids that would be happy to care for me but isn’t it nice that they don’t have to.
They can concentrate on raising and educating their own families as I did.
.
Don’t blame this mess on old people. Blame it on the greedy welfare class that sits home on their ass and votes for more free stuff. What do they contribute?
NOTHING
They are nothing other than leeches sucking the life out of the country.
If I follow you reasonably, you are referencing the idea that natural evolution will change the university structure of today. Thus a concerted effort to change may not be necessary.
His end view wasn’t exactly what I would call uplifting, not that he advocated for that eventual reality.
>”The popularity of programs such as Medicare and Social Security”<
Popularity? Are those programs Voluntary and nobody told me, really?
If so, give me back the $300,000 the Government forced me and my Employer (as part of my Compensation Package) to pay into the system plus the 40+ years of Compounded Interest and I’ll take care of myself until I Die.
Well, I know the social security disability program is widely abused as a welfare scam. But that doesn’t mean the programs would be solvent if they were solely based on paying money to the elderly. Since they’re funded by current money coming in and our birth rate has declined greatly since the programs were instituted, the programs are on an unsustainable path even if the money only goes to seniors. Examine some stats...
a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in.
Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
By the time today’s middle-aged workers reach retirement age, only two workers will be around to support their benefits. Promised benefits will exceed revenues by about 30 percent, and there will be no money in the trust fund to rely on.
Thus, Social Security is — and always has been — a transfer system from younger generations to older generations.
I remember that Bush II tried to institute a transition to an investment solution that would be a sustainable system, but the ‘rats insisted that smoke and mirrors be maintained.
I’d hope that the term Death Panels would come true for those empaneled.
Yup, and Newt Gingrich advocated for a change to private accounts a la Chile and Galveston, TV in the primaries. The RINOs also abandoned Bush. But it’s also true the change did not poll well. The Dems demagogue it as stealing social security from seniors and the seniors buy into that. Even on FR, we see how once the checks start coming, people refuse to listen to the facts and insist these are wonderful, flawless programs. Bribing the voters and turning them into dependents of the government trumps both rationality and ideology.
At which point did you lose your most rudimentary mathematics skills?
Age on your part does not make math irrelevant.
Age on your part does not remove often ill thought but usually just selfish government enforced roadblocks to self employment either.
When I responded to this post, I had to look up ‘Schumpeterian’. Did I address your thoughts accurately, or did I misinterpret your reference?
When Social Security started, there was no “trust fund.” The taxes of the young, from what I understand, immediately started funding the checks to the retired. It was a wealth transfer done in real time from the young to the old from day one and continues to be so.
I’d suggest that weaning of the takers from the teat should start with the younger ones and move up the age food chain until sustainability is obtained.
No question about that. Welfare and wealth redistribution programs should be rolled back roughly in reverse order of when they were created, starting with Dumbocare.
Both of the major parties are responsible for that.
And one hundred percent of the people who would only vote for a candidate in the major parties “because only they can win” fully earned (and fully deserve) what is happening now as the gravy train finally wrecks.
And you haven't touched on the illegal alien eligibility issue, nor the likely tremendous fraud going on with disability (which really seemed to increase when the 99 weeks ran out).
Mission creep has drained the coffers, along with Congress' "Borrowing" from the nonexistent trust fund.
“a wealth transfer done in real time from the young to the old from day one and continues to be so.”
No.
If it were then the huge SS fund surpluses in the 80’s and 90’s would have been immediately given to the retired.
They’d have been rich beyond their dreams!
The economy would still be booming from their lavish spending.
It’s “a wealth transfer done in real time from the young to the government from day one and continues to be so.”
Well that was telling. First I wasn’t directing it at you personally, obviously you took it that way. So I’ll respond with the same level of respect...as it isn’t a one way street, apparently you need reminding.
Probably the most ignorant rant I’ve ever read. So genius, by your logic, it wouldn’t matter if one generation causes another to be homeless and starving...”thems are the breaks!” right? Only a selfish fool would have the opinion that an unsustainable system should just be allowed to go on, no matter how bad it gets for the future generations, and somehow conclude that you and your entire generation had nothing to do with it? Brilliant! ...keep the status quo, so long as it doesn’t affect you right?
Who holds more responsibility for the current situation? Your generation or the younger one? OF COURSE you have some responsibility (as do all of us)...your entire generation does, it certainly isn’t the fault of newborn babies! Maybe you think so? Did your generation not allow the current system to continue to exist, perpetuate and get worse? Yes, it did. Take some responsibility! As do I!
You laugh at my comment about stacking the deck but then rant on “...and you’re doing the same thing!” (playing the game). First, it isn’t a game. Second, you’re admitting I’m right....just that you have a 20-30 year lead on me, years where I couldn’t do anything. Fine, you win! Glad you don’t give a crap about anybody else.
Yes, it is the nature of the young to whine and complain. It doesn’t mean you should just completely ignore what is being said. That said, it is also the nature of ALL of us to be selfish...and never be the one to blame. You’re as guilty as anybody, proven throughout your response. It sounds like me, me, me...I’m not gonna be the one that gets screwed, it’s not my fault wah! - let it be the next guys, how is that not selfish whining too? Maybe your generation, for those with enough money for retirement, should forgo their SS checks....how much do you want to bet that won’t happen? I’d bet everything I own! Sorry but you’re being incredibly self-righteous. You almost sound like a politician, just kick the can down the road.
And you’re wrong about the “only alternative”. You ignore a phased approach. We start to lower the SS payout at an increasing rate over time (decades) for those going into it later, not those already in. At the same time you’ll be able to proportionately require less from the younger generations to pay for it. Phase it out, it is the only way. Nobody said just “end it now”, that would be rather stupid and heartless - shock(!), we don’t want that! I never said “change the game on them”. You put words in my mouth and vilified me for it. I don’t want to be selfish and have our seniors not be able to get by...you, however, seem fine with new debt and financial chaos because you’ll be gone by the time we need to pay the piper. Me, well, I’m sure you think I want to see my retired parents destitute right? Sigh, not everybody is as stupid as you think they are. It *was* pretty stupid to jump to the conclusion that I just wanted to “kill you and start over”. Seriously, that’s your argument? And you’re accusing me of stupidity?
We’re headed for a disaster, you can see it coming, yet apparently I’m a 14 year old girl for pointing it out. I guess with age comes the arrogance that you know better than everybody else, to you everybody is just whining when they’re on a sinking ship. Screw you. You’ve become nasty, cold and narrow minded. If you think there isn’t a growing and unsustainable problem you have your head in the sand.
What have you done about it? I just see you blaming everybody else and saying to the young, “tough **it”. What am I doing about it? I vote and put my $$$$ where my mouth is. I perpetually give to numerous charities and causes. Do you? I bet not, you’re owed by society right? Mine! Mine! Mine!. YOU sound like a 3 year old. I’m surprised you’re on FR....you have a simpleton view of the world, plus you don’t care about anybody else.
I think that strikes the same tone and level of respect you showed me. Fair? or are you going to whine about it?
Now, if you want to have an adult conversation let me know...but don’t you dare talk to me like I’m a whining teenager, who do you think you are? I’ve gone through my hard times, days I couldn’t put a meal on the table for my family - but I fought through it and made something of myself. I raised a U.S. Marine thank you very much and I didn’t do it by whining and being a bad example. Now I’m paying out my rear in endless taxes, pay insane education costs and see MY retirement threatened (just waiting for them to come after my 401k) - when I did everything right. Ooops, I’m whining again right?
They’re just getting unearned extras now that must be shouldered by the working generations.
If taxes in a given year exceed benefit payments, then the surplus is added to the Trust Fund. Likewise, if taxes fall short of benefit payments due for the year, the Trust Fund makes up the difference -- until it runs dry. For many years Social Security operated with a surplus, building up the Trust Fund to about $2.7 trillion as of the beginning of 2013.
Because future taxes are projected to fall short of benefit payments, Goss and his actuarial team project that the combined Social Security Trust fund will run dry in 2033. At that time, benefits to retirees and other beneficiaries in that year would need to be reduced by about 23 percent in aggregate.
After 2030, taxes paid into the system are projected to be about 4.7 percent of GDP, but the benefits paid will be about 6.1 percent of GDP. To close this gap, either taxes need to be increased by about one-third, benefits need to be reduced by about one-fourth, or there needs to be some equivalent combination of revenue increases and benefit reductions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.