Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don't be ridiculous. Elections in the United States are pretty much a pure expression of the Id of Baby Boomers. This will be even more true over the next 10-20 years because the retired and elderly vote in even greater numbers than the population as a whole. Finally, when they're dead at the end of that period, our politics will hopefully go through an evolutionary leap.

Of course Baby Boomers aren't to blame for their raw numbers, but whether they're to blame for their epic narcissism and complacency is an open question. Pretty much at every single stage of their lives: whether they were fighting so that only the poor and minorities would be drafted in their teens in the late 60s, or fighting for consequence-free andro-centric sex in their twenties in the 70s, or the elevation of greed to a religion in their thirties in the 80s, or their efforts to pervert Chrstianity into some sort of right-wing self-help parody of itself in their forties in the 90s, to the Teabagging support of the security state in the 2000s, it's one long cluster-fuck that they should rightly be held to account for. The sooner they're off booed off the stage, the better for each of us, for our country, and for the world at large.

Like so often happens in literature, the Greatest Generation gave birth to a prodigal son, and there's no sign of the wisdom that comes with age.

Whose fault is that?? Those damn boomers, always voting. Why can't they slack off like the other generations.

And in your tirade you failed to mention that the boomers protested and got the government out of Vietnam, a war started by the prior generation. It was the backbone of the civil rights movement. Yup, most of those kids getting their heads cracked and hit with water hoses were boomers. And they fought for equal rights of women generally and in the workplace.

Lastly, it seems to me quite ironic to accuse them of greed when this post is all about what they got that we didn't.

Anonymous wrote:yes. how do we take it back from the boomers and their screwed up children?

You ARE their screwed up children.

yes. how do we take it back from the boomers and their screwed up children?

Anonymous wrote:Well, for those of us who came of age in the 90s and more recently, SAHM + Federal employee = very modest lifestyle purchased at the expense of the possibility of savings. A SFH needing work in Fairfax County might still be a possibility, but it would be at the top of the family's price range and would prohibit energetic saving.

I don't think you realize how much you benefited from relatively cheap housing (compared to income) back in your day. Slow and steady no longer wins any races.

Agree. Aside from inheritance- It's ALL in the question of whether, when and where, but especially when you bought and sold any houses.

Your age, education and your profession do not matter at all.
We will never again have such a transfer of wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you responded to, not the knucklehead you've been arguing with. That is a valid point, but I don't think it's sufficient to make means testing a bad idea. (It's also the tried and true slippery slope, a logical fallacy.) If your brother needs SS, he'd still get it. But the point of SS is so our older citizens aren't compelled to work until they drop, or subsist on dog food (or starve) if they can no longer work. It'll still be available to everyone if needed; just not automatically provided to anyone who has enough retirement assets (and set the bar ridiculously high - $2 million in assets and more don't get benefits). When someone falls below the threshold, benefits begin (at a reduced rate, until another benchmark is reached). And if you never fall below the threshold, well, consider yoruself lucky.

Also, I refuse to cave in to the "I want mine" mentality. It's abhorrent, and shouldn't be enabled.

Pp here who is skeptical about means testing here - Your suggestion seems reasonable to me so I certainly wouldn't take to the barricades to oppose it. But I do think there is reason to be careful about means testing. As you can see in the very threads of DCUM, anything that is seen to be a program for the poor is regularly attacked by people who see it as a handout for a few rather than as something that is beneficial to society as a whole.

You know people with money and means will get around asset thresholds by gifting, setting up trusts. The have's know how to protect what they've got ... and that includes ALL have's, Gen X'ers and millenials, too!

What these complainers do not realize is that Boomers are cutting Boomer's benefits!

Really, the stupidity is impressive!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you responded to, not the knucklehead you've been arguing with. That is a valid point, but I don't think it's sufficient to make means testing a bad idea. (It's also the tried and true slippery slope, a logical fallacy.) If your brother needs SS, he'd still get it. But the point of SS is so our older citizens aren't compelled to work until they drop, or subsist on dog food (or starve) if they can no longer work. It'll still be available to everyone if needed; just not automatically provided to anyone who has enough retirement assets (and set the bar ridiculously high - $2 million in assets and more don't get benefits). When someone falls below the threshold, benefits begin (at a reduced rate, until another benchmark is reached). And if you never fall below the threshold, well, consider yoruself lucky.

Also, I refuse to cave in to the "I want mine" mentality. It's abhorrent, and shouldn't be enabled.

To the PP who told her in-laws "no" to their request for a loan, were they born in 1946 or later? Are they truly Boomers? (I agree that you should not subsidize their lifestye!)

There sure as hell are a lot of boomers subsidizing the lifestyle of their children and grandchildren, I guess we should all stop that, too. After all, it is all a bout ME, ME, ME!!!!! I wouldn't want to to do anything to help out a family member. After all, that is what GOVERNMENT is for.

Well, for those of us who came of age in the 90s and more recently, SAHM + Federal employee = very modest lifestyle purchased at the expense of the possibility of savings. A SFH needing work in Fairfax County might still be a possibility, but it would be at the top of the family's price range and would prohibit energetic saving.

I don't think you realize how much you benefited from relatively cheap housing (compared to income) back in your day. Slow and steady no longer wins any races.

Wow! This post hit a nerve. Lots of anger on both sides. As a 56 year old female who has raised 3 successful children, you should be angry at your parents because they raised you to be victims. I am one of the people you hate. I never had a career, was a stay at home Mom who is married to a retired federal employee. We are sitting pretty on a fat 401k and a nice annuity the first of every month. When my husband started on his career, we were looked down upon by our families. Slow and steady does win the race and working with a good financial advisor to get you set up is good advice and provides peace of mind.
Maybe you are living beyond your means and blaming a failing system. If you're smarter than the average park bear, figure it out.
Another suggestion is to get out of the private school rat race. We raised our kids in Fairfax County. Almost all the kids go to public schools out here in the burbs. The schools are very supported by the families in the community. The kids are very active within the framework of the public school system. One of my kids ended up at UVA and the other ended up in a small private college.
I hope some of this information is helpful!

FWIW. We can't wait to downsize and move out of here. It was a great place to raise kids, but it is not our idea of how we want to sail off into the sunset. We are moving north.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
My mom and dad are both Feds. When they retire in a few years in their late 50s they will receive around 80+% of their salary for the rest of their lives. Then on top of that, they both get an extra $20K in SS? They don't need it. I'm paying for part of it--and I can barely afford to make ends meet because my Fed job was cut last year.

How is this fair to anybody?

To get a pension at that level they must be under CSRS. If so, they won't get Social Security because they didn't pay into it. People hired after 1984 get a smaller Federal pension and Social Security, but they contributed to both.

So your life sucks and you're placing the blame on your parents?

To the PP who told her in-laws "no" to their request for a loan, were they born in 1946 or later? Are they truly Boomers? (I agree that you should not subsidize their lifestye!)

Anonymous wrote:This thread is hilarious, wall-to-wall dumbasses. Dear me. I think it's safe to say none of you are going anywhere in life.

Nice try, troll!

This thread is hilarious, wall-to-wall dumbasses. Dear me. I think it's safe to say none of you are going anywhere in life.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. DH's parents recently asked us for $25K to help cover their bills. They have investments but don't want to see them because they "don't want to sell at a loss." They own two homes and live well above their means. FIL retired at 59 and does not seem capable of finding another job.

It sucked to tell them no, because they honestly thought that they were in a big bind. What they were incapable of seeing was that in giving them $25K now, it would open up a door to a room that we are not capable of sustaining.

Good for you, pp. I'm sure it was tough to say no but it was the right thing.