re: My theory on why baby boomers are criticized

quote:

---

Are you saying people who paid into it for 40 years shouldn't get some back?

---

At some point, some generation (or large portion of a generation) is going to pay into it for a long time and not get anything back.

quote:

---

Most of this country is broke and desperate, and your solution is to take away the nominal protection they have for retirement

---

I would propose means testing the program for current retirees to limit the go-forward expenditures and completely eliminating future benefits for those under 40. Stop the bleeding and phase down contributions for younger folks who won’t receive distributions as retirees die off. No one under 22 ever contributes a dime moving forward.

I am in my mid 30s and would be “hosed” in this scenario, but the only way to stop this ponzi scheme is for some generation to absorb the blow for their kids. I’d much prefer my kids be able to contribute to their own 401k in their 20s rather than paying into some government slush fund with a shite “return.” I’ll absorb the personal hit for them to have that advantage.

quote:

---

The "Great Wealth Transfer" is the historic, ongoing hand-off of an estimated \(\$84\) trillion in assets from Baby Boomers to younger generations over the next two decades. As the oldest Boomers turn 80, this shift is accelerating, with Millennials poised to inherit the lion's share and Gen X acting as the primary first-wave recipients.

---

Here's your shot.

Source: AI/Google

quote:

---

The difference between the boomers any everyone else. They would rather the world burn and steal from their kids and grandkids than give up a penny. I hope my generation can do everything possible to shield my kids and grandkids from this mess the boomers created, even if it sucks for me. Boomers love the quote “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” They are the weak men that created hard times.

---

Oh look, An original thought that hasn't been presented 10 times almost verbatim in this thread.

quote:

---

You still aren’t getting his point. Someone has to eat the shite sandwich. If SS is shut down today you eat the shite sandwich. But you don’t want to eat the shite sandwich, inevitably leaving your kids to eat the shite sandwich. That’s what scruffy is getting at. You make your kids eat the shite sandwich because you’re selfish. No one is saying it wouldn’t be inconvenient or unfair to you to have the social security. Done away with. Just that because you have the “it’s mine dammit and I’ll get what I’m owed!” Attitude you’re screwing over your own descendants.

---

These arguments all miss the point. It is critical when addressing Social security that folks understand what SS is, and what it is not.

SS is a Federal borrowing instrument. It is not a retirement benefit, though it has been successfully marketed that way since its inception. (see addendum below)

SS is uniquely structured among Federal Programs as a US debt obligation. As such, the program could be wound down over time. It could be transitioned/privatized as W proposed. But payouts to current and near future retirees cannot be shutdown, regardless as to who "wants to eat the shite sandwich."

SS is structured so that every 1¢ contributed is immediately converted to a US debt obligation. A federal IOU is generated, and the money is spent on whatever the government wants to spend it on. Repayment obligation is no different than would be the case if the same workers held a treasuries fund over the same time (except the SS ROI is worse).

Regarding that obligation, the 14th Amendment holds that United States debt shall not be questioned. Congress can cut/eliminate nearly any program, even "entitlement" programs. But insofar as SS "benefits" are debt repayment rather than entitlement delivery, nonpayment for long-term contributors is simply not a Constitutional option.

-----------------

Addendum:
Lincoln famously quipped, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." FDR proved him wrong with Social Security by selling the premise that loan repayments are a retirement benefit.

Social Security was conceived at the outset of FDR's second term. FDR needed funding sources for his ongoing "New Deal." In the midst of the Depression, national and institutional lenders were stressed and scarce. FDR realized there was a way to force US employers/employees to lend him the money he needed .... and to thank him for it!

His program would extract money from the entire workforce (50:50 employee:employer). For four years in start up, no one would be eligible for repayment. Then in 1940, new retirees who had contributed, would be eligible for prorated payments. The first "full benefit" recipients would not appear until the early 1970's.

From inception, SS contributions were converted to US debt instruments, just as they are today. Those notes were IOU's issued to the SSTF. Meanwhile, the money was spent on "New Deal" programs. The fledgling SS funded 30% of FDR's 2nd term "New Deal" programs, then sizably aided with WWII expenses.

So SSI was 30 years old before the first Boomer could've even voted to shut it down in 1964.

(For those that can't do math)

And, of course, every 18yo is thinking about his retirement plans.

But "Boomer" is a fun word, and easy to spell, so let's blame them.