I am sick and tired of the baby boomers.

[Anonymous]

I was born at the tail end and graduated college in 1982 with debt and walked into what was then the worst recession since the Depression. Sound familiar?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was born at the tail end and graduated college in 1982 with debt and walked into what was then the worst recession since the Depression. Sound familiar?

Exactly.

Tail-ender here. I was working as a secretary for a non-profit in Cleveland in 1982. Yes, it was a dark time. I'm not sure Cleveland ever fully recovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Precisely, PP. Social Security was never designed to serve as greens fees for healthy 67-year-olds with hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts. Bring on the means testing! I don't care how much you've paid into it, boomers.

What's your HHI?

$275K in a baseline year, this year has been much better so will be more like $400K.

What's your point?

My point is that you already have plenty of income. Why are you begrudging Gramps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll be dead soon.

not nearly as soon as you think ...

and if my kid(s) were the kind of snivelling snotty little shits that folks like you appear to be, I'd be sure that none of the considerable amount we've saved/earned in years of hard work get passed down to you.

So by being rude, angry, entitled, etc., some of you will talk yourselves into a more limited and uncomfortable life than you might have by alienating some of the source of possible financial relief, in lesser or greater amounts, as inter-generational wealth transfer happens --- or doesn't.

Typical Boomer tactic: trying to control kids with money. I am a Gen Xer who paid for my college education, wedding, and house. If I can't afford it I don't own it and I like it that way. I already know I won't inherit a cent from my parents when they pass. But I will always be grateful to them for raising me to be financially, spiritually, and emotionally independent. So when I call them or write them or visit them it's because I -- gasp! -- actually love them, not because I am appeasing them in hopes of financial gain.

No. WRONG.

Not "control kids with money." Rather, observe, assess and act upon behavior towards others and choose not to reward bad behavior.

Act like an asshole? Don't expect a gold star, a pat on the back, and a raise in your allowance. Or a big inheritance.

There is a gulf miles wide between "appeasing" your parents in hopes of financial gain vs. not acting like a self-centered, entitled asshole.

The apparent inability to see the difference is evidence of the lack of critical thinking and analytical skills among certain people that's been mentioned during this thread.

Your logic here = massive fail.

No, sir; my logic remains flawless. Your argument rests upon the shaky premise that adults can be "rewarded" with large inheritances. Your responses to behavior that you have observed and assessed are rooted in your flawed belief that the prospect of financial gain will motivate children. It is a massive failure of logic to merely assume that money is used by other parents in the same manner that you have chosen to use it to motivate your children.

[Anonymous]

If money doesn't motivate you. why do you care that older generations have more than you do?

[Anonymous]

Precisely, PP. Social Security was never designed to serve as greens fees for healthy 67-year-olds with hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts. Bring on the means testing! I don't care how much you've paid into it, boomers.

What's your HHI?

$275K in a baseline year, this year has been much better so will be more like $400K.

What's your point?

My point is that you already have plenty of income. Why are you begrudging Gramps?

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

[Anonymous]

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If money doesn't motivate you. why do you care that older generations have more than you do?

I don't care. But I feel compelled to correct those who assume money can be used to control everyone. The advantage of paying my own way through adulthood has been an honest and respectful relationship with my parents. Does this mean that anyone whose parents give them money is precluding the possibility of a similarly honest and rewarding relationship? Of course not. But I think insincerity is more likely when parents habitually reward adult children with large sums of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was born at the tail end and graduated college in 1982 with debt and walked into what was then the worst recession since the Depression. Sound familiar?

Exactly.

Gen X 1986 college graduate here. Yes, it sounds familiar. I was there as well. But a boomer who graduated before a bunch of boomers crashed the bond market might not recall how hard it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also the Boomers are cutting other Boomers' benefits, and lower benefits mean they will spend down their savings and not enjoy their retirement as much. I mean, the simplistic and sometimes flawed reasoning here makes me wonder about the quality of education in the U.S.! And don't you dare accuse me of not thinking of my children! Them's fighting words!

Retirement is a myth and and the concept began less than 100 year a go. My dad worked up until a month before he died at age 73. I don't plan on retiring either. Oh and our HHI before he died was 250k / year 10 years a go my current gen x is 250k/ year now. So what I am getting at is stop being lazy and dump the crack pipe dream of retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Retirement age should be raised to 68. In the past you lived shorter and your retirement time was much shorter.

[Anonymous]

corr - Does this mean that anyone who gives their children money is precluding...relationship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Adjustments need to be made so that the system can help the most who actually need the help in the future. That's why I support means testing and raising the age when people start to receive benefits. The rich do not need this income. My friend's wealthy father, a pre-boomer, actually looked into sending the checks back once he started receiving them, but then found out he'd be taxed on the income even if he refused it, and gave up.

Anyone who is sane supports means testing and raising the SS retirement age. If you want to retire early, great - just save up. And if you were fortunate hand have significant retirement assets, don't expect the federal government to kick in an extra $20,000 per year. How is this remotely controversial?

Actually I think means testing is a mistake and this is why. Once you start means testing benefits, that is - they are no longer universal - then the public gets weary of them and they get reduced even for the people who really need them. That's why in the US Social Security has so many supporters but TANF is always under attack while universal benefits to parents regardless of income in European nations has widespread political support. I'm not afraid of sacrifice. As an upper-middle class professional who has prepared adequately for retirement I know that I could handle a cut in benefits. But my brother, who struggled through health problems, and lives paycheck to paycheck even though he works hard as a nurse, would be hurt by it. But what worries me on a broader level is that if people like me get reduced benefits, those benefits will lose political support.

So yeah people are self-interested and they want what they think "is coming to them." And once it isn't"coming to them" they begrudge those benefits to others. I think our society needs these benefits so let's raise the retirement age but I'm skeptical about whether means-testing is a good idea at this point in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also the Boomers are cutting other Boomers' benefits, and lower benefits mean they will spend down their savings and not enjoy their retirement as much. I mean, the simplistic and sometimes flawed reasoning here makes me wonder about the quality of education in the U.S.! And don't you dare accuse me of not thinking of my children! Them's fighting words!

Retirement is a myth and and the concept began less than 100 year a go. My dad worked up until a month before he died at age 73. I don't plan on retiring either. Oh and our HHI before he died was 250k / year 10 years a go my current gen x is 250k/ year now. So what I am getting at is stop being lazy and dump the crack pipe dream of retirement.

100 years ago people did not live so long. Their bodies were capable of manual labor right up until a disease got them you can't work a coal mine at 80.

[Anonymous]

The WWII generation is to blame. They put Ss and Medicare into place. They had lots of kids. The boomers did nothing wrong except be born and then decide to have fewer children. It's not their fault that there are so many of them.

Gen Xers we have been voting for 20 years. It's time to stop blaming and take responsibility for our country. We font vote enough and we don't take this issue seriously when we go to vote. We are complaining but acting like victims. It's kind of pathetic really.