SparkyWilson

quote:

---

The problem with your analysis is that Shrimper Dan's comment to me was not made in a vacuum and was part of an ongoing discussion which he chimed in on.

---

The context of ShrimperDan's response and my subsequent comment had everything to do with continue Social Security staying as-is. The poster you were sparring with (Midtiger farm) who sparked your question about how successive generations will also get screwed was also talking about what happens if it continues. Successive generations likely will get screwed similar to the Greatest generation had better SS benefits than the Boomers as NC Tigah stated.

quote:

---

The poster with whom I was having that discussion (and notice that I didn't say "thread," I said "discussion," and that's what I was referring to, not the whole thread) was indeed advocating a revenge-quit on the Boomers.

---

Really? Check 4 posts down on page 14 of this thread when you first question why I questioned you.

"The whole premise of the thread is stopping SS"

quote:

---

Now that we can (hopefully) finally let that go,

---

Maybe you can; I can't and won't and didn't, obviously.

quote:

---

the Boomers won't get screwed and neither will anybody else. Because they won't stop the program and they won't reform it either, other than that they will raise taxes in some form to keep paying for it. As a last resort, they'll import more immigrants and give them citizenship so they can pay for it.

---

Possible, but I doubt it. Like NC Tigah said, whatever changes happen to make it keep going will likely cost the successive generations, not the Boomers just like it cost the Boomers and not the generations prior to them.

quote:

---

If young people are really worried about it, they need to start having some fricking kids.

---

Easier said than done. I have two, working on more, but it's expensive as hell. It's a different world than when the Boomers came of age.

quote:

---

The Boomers did their part by having enough kids to pay for their retirement. If Gen Y and Z aren't willing to do so, then that's on them.

---

GenX and Millennials have not paid enough into Social Security to cover the Boomers, so I don't know where you're getting that from. There's a been a trend to smaller families starting with the Boomers (2-3 kids; 1-2 since them). There's a lot that goes into why, but it's only become more expensive to have children. It's not so simple to just say have more kids.

quote:

---

And anybody who is going to start whining that people don't have the money to have kids anymore please explain this chart to me showing the inflation adjusted rise of median disposable income since 1900 (when the median number of kids was 3.5). Average people have never had more money than they do now.

---

Nice graph, but it lacks context. As defined by the source of the graph, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, real disposable income is "the income that's left after people pay their taxes is disposable personal income, also known as after-tax income. It's the amount that U.S. residents are able to spend, save, or invest." It's only total after-tax (fed, state, and local - no sales) income. The left-over income still has to pay for people to live.

Real Disposable Income

That graph speaks nothing to the percentage of personal costs of living relative to disposable income. It was around 67% from 1964 to 1984. It's around 92% now. So, yeah, the average person has more disposable income (by the USBEA) than ever before, but their financial liabilities relative to that income have never been higher than before (note: the 2008 saw a spike in this and it had a taper back down). yes, I realize there's a lot that goes into that, both good and bad reasons, but it is without a doubt more expensive to live now that it was 50 years ago relative to disposable income.

Liabilities relative to disposable income

quote:

---

In that regard, it is exactly what was done to boomers in 1983. The cost of contributions increased, the program expanded, the amount of the loan increased, the benefits decreased. Meanwhile, current "beneficiaries" continued with their "benefits" unfettered. That is far-and-away the most likely outcome here.

---

The bolded part sounds a lot like less benefits that I mentioned.

The bolded underlined part sounds a lot like boomers aren't going to see any difference in benefits that I mentioned.

What part is not quite correct?

quote:

---

There's no scenario where boomers do not get theirs primarily because they are already drawing it or are about to.

---

quote:

---

That's literally what the entire discussion has been about. Stopping it abruptly and rage quitting on the Boomers.

---

No. This thread has been all over the place about the present and future of social security. There have been multiple subset discussions happening within the thread as well. Your subset discussion with ShrimperDan started with this question:

quote:

---

I have another question: Please explain to me how SS is "Going to screw your kids and grandkids."

---

He told you how with this:

quote:

---

If the kids and grandkids of boomers pay into Social Security and then do not actually get benefits themselves from it as many people predict, that would be screwing them would it not?

---

You responded with this:

quote:

---

No more than the boomers paying in and not getting theirs.

Right?

---

I said how it wasn't the same thing and why. I expounded on it when you wanted an explanation when I gave you the three scenarios as I see it.

In a scenario where it is a complete rage quit on social security, then, yeah, the boomers get screwed along with everyone else, but the Boomers can rest easy since it's not going to happen that way. It's not going to be pulled from the boomers nor is their payout going to be changed.

I inferred that ShrimperDan's answer to your question was based on the scenario of SS continuing in some form or another, and, correctly, he said that will mean screwing over the successive generations in some way.

Do what you will with all of that or do nothing. It's perfectly normal for threads to go off road a bit.

My father nails all but number 4 in addition to being suspicious and insecure, and it took me 35 years to realize it. It's why I don't talk with him anymore.

Would demanding an apology when wronged despite never willing to do it when they are wrong number 11 or should it be 7b?

quote:

---

Him and Quinn both retards

---

They both share blame. Jayden has been playing football for a long time and he's not a rookie. He has to know the situation regardless of whether or not the coaches have laid if out for him. Zero reason for him to have tried to tuck and run. Launch that thing towards the sideline and past the LoS.

Most definitely.

quote:

---

The whole premise of the thread is stopping SS.

---

Yes, you are correct.

quote:

---

The next generations are in much greater danger of reduced benefits or means testing.

---

quote:

---

What does that have to do with stopping SS? Connect the dots to the topic for me, please.

---

Sure. Happy to help.

ShrimperDan posted this:

quote:

---

If the kids and grandkids of boomers pay into Social Security and then do not actually get benefits themselves from it as many people predict, that would be screwing them would it not?

---

Your response was this:

quote:

---

No more than the boomers paying in and not getting theirs.

Right?

---

My response is based on the premise that boomers will get their SS regardless; there will be no abrupt stop to SS where everybody gets nothing.

The scenarios I see:

1. The choose not to stop social security and leave it as is: boomers still get theirs; successive generations get less and less likely to get theirs.

2. the choose not to stop social security and they make changes to try and make it last: boomers still get theirs; successive generations will only get some of theirs.

3. They choose to stop social security: boomers still get theirs; some of successive generations get something; some get nothing.

There's no scenario where boomers do not get theirs primarily because they are already drawing it or are about to. That would be politically lethal for anyone trying to do it.

quote:

---

I think there’s a widely held misconception that most boomers are wealthy / have significant assets. That is not the case

---

Holding that misconception includes boomers. The ones that have done it right act like their entire cohort has done it right when they are talking about successive generations.

quote:

---

Matt Walsh is an idiot. SS is guaranteed. It might not be for coming generations, but it is for those that have paid in.

* When it was passed in 1935, the govt provided a pamphlet that established its guarantee

* On the govt website it clearly states that SS is an entitlement. And as it appears youre having trouble with understanding the concept, I will define it for you
quote:
entitlement - something, often a benefit from the government, that you have the right to have:

Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs in the US that people who have paid into these symptoms have a right to collect from them

The Speaker of the House has also confirmed that right
quote:
Speaker Johnson said that entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare have to be adjusted and fixed. His focus is on improving oversight, reducing fraud, and addressing what he described as "autopilot" spending

---

Sure, you have a right to collect it, but there's a lot of space between collecting something versus collecting nothing. They could very easily adjust the benefit amount equation by adding new bend points in income, adjusting bend point percentages or establishing a separate equation based on individual income. None of that is set in stone.

It wouldn't be hard to maintain people collecting at least something while making significant changes in how much people collect.

quote:

---

Social Security serves a purpose. It is important for millions of lower income people. Decide how to cut the high income earners out.
It will never go away because well: Social Security serves a purpose. It is important for millions of lower income people.

---

I would accept it, but I don't expect it to go away. I've pretty much given up on expecting to get much of anything out of it when my time comes. Just the way it is. I can easily see it moving to means tested where people who had the means and prepared for retirement accordingly will be denied anything.

As some have said, if it goes away, you'll have masses of low income people with little to retirement savings who have nothing to rely on. The government probably steps in then and you're back to having to fund something similar to SS.

And here I was thinking that France was one of the paragons of social programs.

I entered "why is france's public school system underfunded? I thought they were better at this." into google's search engine. Very interesting responses

Some snippets:

quote:

---

While France has historically prided itself on a centralized, egalitarian state model, its public school system is currently facing a severe resource crisis that has triggered massive, countrywide youth protests. The perception that France is universally "better at this" conflicts with a series of structural issues, policy decisions, and budgetary strain

---

quote:

---

1. Heavy Subsidies for Private Schools
A major driver of resource inequity is how France allocates its national education budget. The French government spends roughly $9.9 billion annually subsidizing approximately 7,500 private schools. This money fully funds private school teacher salaries and provides per-pupil local funding.

Because subsidized private schools can use selective criteria to admit students, they frequently "skim" higher-performing, wealthier students. This leaves the public school system to disproportionately serve lower-income and disadvantaged student populations while working with heavily depleted operational and facilities budgets.

---

quote:

---

5. Elite Disengagement from the State System
The crisis is compounded by a growing sense that French elites have abandoned the public system entirely. A prominent example occurred when the French Education Minister faced immense backlash for pulling her own children out of state schools to enroll them in an exclusive private institution. As affluent and politically connected families migrate to the publicly subsidized private sector, political urgency to fix and properly fund the public system has degraded.

---

But hey, they have their national health system.