1. IrvingSnodgrass - May 4, 1999 - 9:43 AM PT
In a recent New York Review of Books, Robert Solow reviews Peter Peterson's Gray Dawn: How the Coming Age Wave Will Transform America—and the World.
The issues involved as the American population ages are interesting. There are social, political, and economic factors at play. Not the least of these factors is what will happen to the social security system, which is the focus of the review.
What are the problems American society will face as baby boomers retire and there are fewer workers to support an aging population? Are the anticipated problems real or overblown? What solutions are possible to ameliorate the problems?
2. resonance - May 4, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
Shoot zem. Shoot zem all.
3. Pseudoerasmus - May 4, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
Soylent green is made of people!
4. Pseudoerasmus - May 4, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
I think this chart (produced by Henry Aaron of Brookings) is once again apropos.
5. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
My lord, Pseudo, I laughed. A pop culture reference!
6. Philistine - May 4, 1999 - 10:52 AM PT
Whattaya mean 'get' old?
7. bubbaette - May 4, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
I'd like to see more means-testing phased into the Social Security program. Even tho I don't have children, I don't like the idea of burdening the next generation with both the federal deficit rung up during my adulthood *and* an unfunded liability for inflated Soc. Sec. benefits just cause our politicians can't say "no" to the gray lobby.
8. AuNaturel - May 4, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
Heroes on television and movies will appear older. Leading ladies will finally be allowed to look like they might actually be over 30.
The population will continue to drop if the birth rate continues to decline, but it may increase if those social groups that historically have higher birth rates continue to do so. We will enter a more conservative social and political era as the proportion of old farts increases.
Technology will eliminate most low salary jobs. This will combine with increases in productivity, shorter work weeks and a need for fewer workers and lead to an enforced welfare, poverty and/or make-work employment condition for many. Crime will increase or decrease dependent on the proportion of the population that is young and/or in poverty.
If the birth rate continues to decline, the per capita expendatures on education will increase. Otherwise it will drop.
Die young. Avoid the rush.
9. MsIvoryTower - May 4, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
"Heroes on television and movies will appear older. Leading ladies will finally be allowed to look like they might actually be over 30."
I'd predicted this a long time ago, that characters, particularly leading ladies, would finally begin to get older onscreen. I've not seen any significant changes in the public's taste for young women from previous decades, although there are more "older" leading men than ever before.
In fact, I'd say that the impact of the baby boom on cultural images is exactly the opposite of what I'd have rationally expected. Rather than embrace aging, they've made even more icons of youth, even going so far as to give youth their own "cultural" voice.
As a result, I've revised my thinking on this, and now believe that many baby boomers, particularly males, are incapable of accepting their own age gracefully, and have become even more juvenile in their mid-life crises than previous generations.
The upshot is that I don't think AuNaturel is correct.
10. MsIvoryTower - May 4, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
Btw, Solow's piece demonstrates precisely why he's a great economist. He can explain the most complex ideas in relatively approachable terms, so that one needn't have an economics degree to understand him.
This was a most enjoyable read.
11. coralreef - May 4, 1999 - 11:37 AM PT
Be prepared for REALLY light rock.
12. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
MsIT, I thing there has been more flexibility than there used to be. I think that the "youth" thing continually renews itself -- sort of by definition. But there is other evidence, e.g., Jane Pauley was canned from the Today show but is a prime-time regular, as is the ubiquitous Baba Wawa. Glamour mag has admitted that their "full-figured" models are the most popular; shows like Cybil and Ellen; Cher has a top-40 hit, etc. Besides, the baby boomers are still growing richer, and we are just too powerful a group to be ignored by the marketeers.
13. bubbaette - May 4, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
a trend that's already started -- big ass jeans and "comfort fit" fashions. flats are increasingly popular with women.
14. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
bbbtt, interesting about flats -- seems the old fogies (like my older, short secretary) insist on wearing their pointy-toed heels, whereas the newbies refuse to wear heels, instead opting for comfortable even if chunky.
Don't forget about smoking. The only folks I see smoking these days are the very old -- could it be that that the young crave after?
15. bubbaette - May 4, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
thoughtful
i'm geezing, and i embraced the sensible shoes style as soon as it surfaced. my heels stay in the back of the closet these days.
16. ChristiPeters - May 4, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
I have nothing to say (hence my being here spouting off).
I have already given up.
I fully expect I will work until they won't let me or I am unable to. Then, since social security will be bankrupt and my 401K will have disappeared with the stock market crash, I will have no means to support myself.
So I'll die.
17. MsIvoryTower - May 4, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
Jaysus.
This Peterson's book is for you. Read it and weep.
____________
I fully expect to work until my 70's, so I've already adapted my expectations to a longer work life.
18. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
Well, it's not like Social Security was going to be anything much as a factor anyway. Once you're over a pretty minimum income level, that is.
So I've always viewed retirement as a a matter for my own choice and preparation.
I don't expect to work until my 70s. A ghastly thought.
But then, I don't really work all that much now, so I guess it doesn't matter.
19. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
Just as I feared. This thread is already getting gray and depressing -- elavil anyone?
I've set a deadline for hubby to retire in 6/2000. I hope to be able to follow shortly thereafter -- provided we get some kind of affordable universal health care coverage.
Well, maybe I will be working longer than I had hoped!
20. bubbaette - May 4, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
muh darlin will be eligible to retire about 15 years before i will. assuming that his body hold up that long. i'm envious.
21. MsIvoryTower - May 4, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Thoughtful,
I don't WANT to stop working before my 70's, really. I enjoy work, particularly the kind of work I do, and plan on doing in the future.
At some point, perhaps in my 60's, I'll want to work less than I am now (although, my schedule is pretty damn loose), but I don't envision stopping work altogether for a long time. Besides, work keeps the brain active and healthy.
22. resonance - May 4, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Can we change the ridiculous, Chicken-Little title of this thread? The Witchcraft blurb is bad enough but this one -- 'They're old! They're old! We're all gonna die!' -- smacks of dubious Irvingry.
23. pellenilsson - May 4, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
This subject, if we ever get down to it, is of great interest in many Western countries. It is also interesting from a political point of view because it pits the short-term and fix-it attititude of many politicians against the slow but inevitable demographic changes taking place.
Just for my information: who are the baby boomers? Born in the mid 40's (like here) or later?
24. ChristiPeters - May 4, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
I was born in 1953
(Of course I admit my age! I am *proud* of every minute I have survived!)
25. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
Baby boomers technically run from 1946 to 1964 -- bulge in the birth rate following WWII. See here for a chart showing the bulge.
26. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Pelle,
Babyboomers are generally considered to be those born from 1948 through 1964.
Speaking as someone born in 62, I feel no kinship with the term "boomer", and believe that a better cultural definition is "someone who remembers JFK's assassination."
27. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Oops. It is 46, not 48. I keep forgetting.
28. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
Yes, this thread title is pretty awful -- What will happen when the baby boomers get old? Grecian formula sales will rise!
29. ChristiPeters - May 4, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
CalGal -
Well, I guess I fit the description then, as I vividly remember JFK's assination. My fifth grade social studies class was listening to the parade over the PA.
30. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
CP,
Oh, yes, you are a boomer.
I assert that boomerdom ends in '59. 60-64 are generational orphans.
31. resonance - May 4, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
Oh, yes, all the Boomers who don't like being called Boomers even though they act like Boomers at the drop of a hat.
32. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
No, that's a Yuppie. Not all Boomers are Yuppies, are they?
I cheerfully cop to Yuppie.
33. bubbaette - May 4, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
I am a boomer. my generation will bury yours.
34. resonance - May 4, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
You're a Boomer. Get over it. OR is this one of those 'Well, I test like this but I'm really an INTP' things?
(wandering out of the Fray)
35. vonKreedon - May 4, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Cal - I absolutely agree with your assessment of those born 60-64 as generational orphans. Someone born in 60 is a teenager in 73 and gets disco as teen anthem; someone born in 65 is a teen in 78 and gets punk anthems. Pity the orphans.
36. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:40 PM PT
I am certainly a boomer by birth, and wouldn't argue it. But culturally, what most people define as a "boomer" applies to people born prior to 1960. Although there is wiggle room either way.
We discussed this back in the My Generation thread. It's nothing new, and is quite often mentioned in articles on boomers.
37. uzmakk - May 4, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
I have not yet chosen the tree under which I am going to sit to die. With the coming of this thread perhaps I will be able to make my choice.
38. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
vK,
Exactly.
Or back in 1996, when they announced that Boomers are turning 50, and the issues that are involved as they age.
I was 34 at the time; pretty much the age of the characters in The Big Chill, that angst-ridden sop to the Boomer realization that they were growing up. Of course, when The Big Chill came out, I was 21--which was the age the oldest Boomers were when they were protesting Vietnam.
If the subject is the large increase in births from 1946-1964, I'm a boomer. But in the sense that most people mean it? I think not.
And, as I mentioned, this has been discussed not only here in the Fray but in the media as well. It's not anything other than obvious that people born 15 years apart might not have much in common, generationally speaking.
39. ProfEmeritus - May 4, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
How do you Boomers feel about proposals for social security reform? The age at which social security kicks in will probably have to be gradually raised as longevity rises. Means testing is inevitable in the future. It is ridiculous to have affluent retirees collecting what is to them small increments in their income. On the other hand, cosmetic adjustments like investing a part of the trust fund in equities or even bonds makes no economic sense and might entail risk for the taxpayer or the individual small investor beyond what should be borne by the average workforce member.
40. ChristiPeters - May 4, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
I don't know enough about economics to have an informed opinion.
I don't have time to learn more about economics right now.
Even if I did, I doubt I could make any difference.
Personally, I think anything the politicians do will be to my detriment (sp?). I have NO faith in "the system".
Because of the abaove and since all I care about is living long enough to get Lil' Darlin' through college, I try not to think about it at all.
So this is probably my last contribution to this thread, although I expect I'll lurk a lot.
41. thoughtful - May 4, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
ProfE, You haven't failed me. I figured you'd kick in on Social Security.
Soc Sec is not a big deal and is easily handled. The big deal that no one is willing to address is Medicare/Medicaid. Mom-in-law just went on Medicaid after we spent down her modest savings -- not that her savings were so modest by most people's standards -- just that at over $70,000 per year for nursing home care, almost anyone's savings will disappear rapidly. She is now allowed -- according to our state's law -- no more than $1,600 in assets (which the state will take upon her demise) and an income not greater than $40 per month. She is also allowed a small escrow account at a funeral home to handle her remains.
42. vonKreedon - May 4, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Prof - I support means testing and raising the retirement age. I expect there to be dramatic breakthroughs in anti-agin therapies and expect that well to do boomers will be quite active into our nineties or more.
43. CalGal - May 4, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
Prof,
Problems arise, it seems to me, when you combine means testing and mandatory retirement age with the continual increase in payroll taxes--Kennedy has suggested removing the cap altogether.
Listen for the squawk as the working wealthy realize that they'll be asked to pay more and more for something that they won't have any part of.
Nor will they *want* to have any part of it, of course. As you point out, the amount will be minimal. But they will have paid in quite a bit. The obvious demand on their part will be for the ability to opt out--while paying still some percentage towards the kitty.
It depends on whether or not they will be able to produce a sufficiently loud squawk, of course.
44. harper - May 4, 1999 - 3:12 PM PT
As a proud Boomer, I think people should be allowed to work as long as they are physically & mentally able if they want to. Or they could plan to have a "retirement career" if they have a mandatory retirement age. Means testing sounds like a good idea to me. OTOH, if there was some way to actually END Social Security & divvy up everyone's contributions so that they could invest them as they saw fit (or spend it all on cheap wine), I'd like that even better. I don't think the government should be acting "in loco parentis" in this matter. People should be responsible for their own retirement, but sometimes they can't afford to sock it away *on top* of what gets taken out for Social Security. I wonder if anyone's done a study on what the average person of a certain age *might* have made had he been able to *invest* what he paid out for FICA. That could be interesting.
45. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 3:31 PM PT
harper
Lots of studies have been done. Folks who retired before about 1985 and lived at least 5 years longer have made a killing. No way could they have done as well by saving or investing an equivalent amount of money.
However, due to ever increasing payroll tax rates those of us who are still working as of 1999 will get screwed. And the younger you are the more screwed you'll get.
46. ranheim - May 4, 1999 - 3:32 PM PT
From the generation born in the Depression.
Are we allowed?
When talking with people my own age, we are nearly unanimous in believing that we screwed up (big time) in the way we brought our children up. The USA that I was born into no longer exists. Some (most) of you think that the "good old days" were, in reality, the bad old days. But, not for a WASP; and I make no apologies for being one.
I'm not a touchy-feely person. I make allowances for the lame, the halt, and the blind. Not too many others.
At 64 I can't conceive of quitting my enjoyable profession. My father lived to 84 and that would be a bit much. I count on Social Security (and the Government in general)for NOTHING. Unless one considers getting screwed by one's own government in the plus column.
47. vonKreedon - May 4, 1999 - 3:55 PM PT
Ran - I pretty much agree with your comment, "...we screwed up (big time) in the way we brought our children up." But I believe we triumphed over your raising of us anyway.
48. cllrdr - May 4, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
But we're always getting screwed by the government, ranheim.
At 52 I should be contemplating retirement. Alas, I can only do that in fantasy. My retirement woould then closely resemble Dirk Bogarde in "Modesty Blaise" -- living on a well-furnished island in the Adriatic with handsome studs to serve me cool drinks and grand opera on the sound system.
49. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 4:01 PM PT
I am one of the first Baby Boomers (1-3-46) and I feel the same way as ranheim in #46 above. Sometimes I can't believe how much this nation has changed, mostly for the worse.
Education is much, much worse. So-called "music" (drums pounding while men scream about mutulating women) is disgusting.
50. cllrdr - May 4, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Don't get me started, Boomer. British "musicals," baggy clothes, Lilith Fair, Snoop Doggy Puff, Brett Easton Ellis, breast implants (in men!), the Three Tenors, "Baywatch," digital imagery, I could go on and one.
And perhaps shall.
51. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
I recently received a letter from Social Security telling me how much my monthly benefit will be at retirement. The first shock was the discovery that my retirement age is 66, not 65. I don't know when they sneaked that one through. The second shock was the pitifully small amount of money I'll be paid.
You younger folks are in for a shock too. We boomers are a greedy, self-centered bunch. We have always gotten our way by using the government to force our will on the rest of society. When the first wave of us gets close to age 65, and see those figures you can bet there'll be some big changes made. We will elect as many politicians as it takes to boost that SS benefit to something at least equal to what we paid in over the years plus a few points interest.
You younger guys will just have to pay for it. It won't be easy. Your payroll tax will probably go up by about 50%. But you'll have no choice. Since you believe the lie your school teachers told you, that this is a Democracy, you'll have no defense when we use our superior numbers to vote ourselves a raise from your pay-check.
Of course we're not going to use our current influence over government to make any changes in the system now, in order to ease the crisis 15 years from now. We're not a generation that thinks of tomorrow. We're too busy trying to stay in the fast lane today. No, we'll just storm Congress in 2012 and make our demands. Just like we've always done.
52. cllrdr - May 4, 1999 - 4:25 PM PT
Boomer I've tried my damndest to use the government to force my way on the rest of society. No go.
53. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
cllrdr
You need more numbers! Gather about 500 people and get in front of a camera! You know the drill! You're a boomer!
54. ProfEmeritus - May 4, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
As Senator Thurmond would say to you young "whippersnappers" (Boomers), you will face some harsh economic realities when you grow up. You will be "dependents" on a numerically small younger generation who have never been through a depression or a recession and who will not tolerate reductions in their real income to support their dependent seniors. So save as much as you can now so that you can be INDEPENDENT.
55. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
One thing you Gen Xers could do is demand more immigration. If you could bring in 40-50 million new immigrants, preferably all in their twenties, to help carry the burden your tax won't have to go up so much.
56. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
cllrdr #52
Those baggy clothes are awful! How can skinny 15 year old stand to wear pants that are big enough for Rosanne and must weigh 10 lbs!!?? And in hot weather!!
57. ChristinO - May 4, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
ProfEm,
All of GenX was alive during Regan's recession and some of us even had jobs and were trying to support ourselves. While this in no way compares with the Depression we've lived most of our lives being told we're the first generation that will be financially worse off than the one before. The Boomers will make out fine like they always have and we'll just grit our teeth and get through it and piss and whine a lot like we always have. It will be both not as bad and much worse than we expect depending on where we fall in the social/financial hierarchy.
58. BoomerJeff - May 4, 1999 - 7:17 PM PT
Carter's recession
Otherwise I agree with you. You'll be worse off because we've made government so big and hungry for your money. And of course because we will take a big chunk from you.
59. ranheim - May 4, 1999 - 7:57 PM PT
#47
I have to assume that your defintion of triumph and mine are different.
Possibly : were you speaking of a car?
60. AuNaturel - May 4, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
"Those baggy clothes are awful! How can skinny 15 year old
stand to wear pants that are big enough for Rosanne and
must weigh 10 lbs!!?? And in hot weather!!"
Yes. Naturism would have been so much better for them.
Actually the style started in the poorer Hispanic communities. Gang members on the street wore baggy pants because that was what was issued to their compadres in prison. They decided it was cool to look like a prisoner.
61. AuNaturel - May 4, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
clldr:
"digital imagery"
??????????
62. Pseudoerasmus - May 4, 1999 - 9:12 PM PT
Message #58
Not Carter's, not Reagan's, but Volcker's recession.
How can a recession in mid-1982 be Carter's????
This idea that the ratio of dependents to earners will dramatically increase is a lie, a canard. See the graph in Message #4.
63. AzureNW - May 4, 1999 - 9:30 PM PT
Graying is much more traumatic if you have dark hair
and a cold.
64. AzureNW - May 4, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
And the gray hairs seem to be sprouting out of the top of my head. Why can't it be at the temples, or in a cool, off-to-one-side, skunk-like streak?
65. AuNaturel - May 4, 1999 - 9:36 PM PT
"How can a recession in mid-1982 be Carter's????"
Can't be Reagan's either. He wasn't there long enough. Even when he was there he really wasn't all there. You're right, it was Volcker's.
66. AzureNW - May 4, 1999 - 9:43 PM PT
I've noticed that some men get completely gray hair
on top, but still have a dark beard and eyebrows, while other men get gray beards and eyebrows, but stay the about the same color as always on top.
67. AzureNW - May 4, 1999 - 9:46 PM PT
If I were a man, I would probably turn out gray on top and dark on the face.
68. AzureNW - May 4, 1999 - 10:04 PM PT
My cat was born with perfectly gray hair covering his entire body, except the tip of his nose and the pads of his paws. Even his whiskers are gray.
69. cllrdr - May 5, 1999 - 7:15 AM PT
Yes, Au. The computer-generated stuff that has become the coin of the realm in Hollywoods. And not just in "speicial effects" extravaganzas like that George Lucas programmer whose name escapes me, but "Forrest Gump" and "In the Line of Fire."
70. Wombat - May 5, 1999 - 8:48 AM PT
Of course, no one says anything about how much more Generation Xers make after graduating college than us boomers (I was born in 1957 and sympathize with CalGal's 1970s ennui); and how much higher their salaries are likely to be in their lifetime. Any increase in Social Security witholding (if necessary) will be more than made up by the higher salaries.
71. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 3:14 PM PT
Wombat
How do you make up for taking 15%+ of a persons wages for 45+ years and then giving them a tiny fraction of it back only if they live long enough, only if they stop working.
What do you mean "made up?" This is a ponzi scheme that would result in jail time if anyone in the private sector tried it! The salaries earned by GenXers is a completely separate matter. Whether their salaries are higher or lower is not relevant to the question of whether or not the government should continue its criminal enterprize known as Social Security.
72. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Wombat
That's like a thug saying, "you're probably going to get a raise soon to make up for this" while he points a gun at you and takes your money.
73. vonKreedon - May 5, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
BJ - No, its not like being mugged. It's exactly like society saying, "Your income is going up so you can afford to help society care for its members who's incomes are stagnant/falling/non-existent, so your dues for being a member of society include these social security payments."
74. CalGal - May 5, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
vK,
Except society doesn't say that, do they? The myth is that SS payments are for an individual's own retirement.
75. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
Von Kreeden
Your #73 is a pretty good paraphrase of what I said in Message #51.
It seems to me that every time someone here in the fray invokes "society" it means that the group that's organized and has developed some clout uses the power of government to suck money from other, unorganized folks.
How does government decide who to take the money from and who to give it to? Why its done by those sweet guys in Congress! Those guys with the pure motives who never do anything to enhance their own power!
So "society" is your name for the group that receives, right? What do you call the other folks? "Suckees"?
76. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
Von Kreeden
CalGal makes an excellent point in #74. Government doesn't even have the fundamental dececy to tell the people the truth!
What if you were an employer and you started deducting money from your employees to pay retirement expenses for your former workers, to whom you promised a pension that you had no means to pay for? Do you know what would happen to you?
You would be tossed in the graybar hotel! You'd be on 60 minutes as yet another example of a slimy greedy business crook!
77. arkymalarky - May 5, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
You're a lot better off than the poor joe who's worked in a dead end job for 40 years waiting for 65 to hit. We owe the elderly who've worked harder for less money the right to retire. My father-in-law deserves social security for feeding the nation twenty years or so, in addition to the other jobs he's done necessary to the functioning of society. He has little more than that, and I'll guarantee you he whines less than some people who have a lot more. In fact, I've never heard him complain at all.
78. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
arky
He might be even happier if he'd been permitted to save/invest his own money rather than having it seized from him. Whatcha think?
79. ProfEmeritus - May 5, 1999 - 4:39 PM PT
Social security should be just that: guaranteed security for those who end up needing it. Everybody is taxed and this is a payment for the contingency that they may need assistance to avoid poverty in their retirement. To achieve this legitimate goal of social insurance, we need a tight income limit on receiving social security. At present dollar values, say an income for an individual of $40,000, and for a family of two, an income of $50,000. Above that, there should be be no outpayments. If this is politically unacceptable, there could be a phasing out of benefits after those income levels are achieved. In that case zero benefits after income of say $80,000 for an individual and $90,000 for two. Benefits should bring incomes up to the specified minimum limits.
80. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
and arky, even though Im sure your father-in-law is a fine person, I sincerely doubt that he fed the nation for 20 years.
81. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
ProfEmeritus
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not its moral for government to be used as an instrument of organized theft, your proposal should mean a very sharp reduction in the payroll tax, right?
82. CalGal - May 5, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
Arky,
"We owe the elderly who've worked harder for less money the right to retire. "
Well, I suppose I should be moved by that statement. But I'm not.
Nonetheless, Social Security is not presented that way. If the government told everyone that they would get no money at all from SS if their retirement income was over a certain amount, how many of the working wealthy (over $100k/yr salary) would agree to payroll tax increases?
As I said earlier, it's a small group. But I'd like to see what would happen if they were told that their mandatory retirement age for getting Medicare and their 401K plans kept pushing up, and payroll taxes continually increasing, all in the name of a benefit program that doesn't involve them.
Why not be honest about it? I still think these people should pay into the general kitty. I'm not sure they should pay as much, though.
And there certainly shouldn't be the same limits on their retirement if they aren't benefiting from the programs that require the limits.
But instead of saying all this and officially severing certain income classes from the program, we continue the myth that Social Security is for everyone.
83. ProfEmeritus - May 5, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Boomer
I haven't worked out the arithmetic of my examples, but I think your assumption is correct.
84. BobaFett - May 5, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Prof:
Everything you say makes perfect sense. Alas, it is ALL politically impossible, even your alternate plan. AARP rules all.
If you think you're going to save SS by cutting benefits, even to the wealthiest recipients, or even of taxing those benefits more than the tiniest bit more, you don't know much about the great gray shark of the SS lobby.
85. CalGal - May 5, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
Prof,
"Everybody is taxed and this is a payment for the contingency that they may need assistance to avoid poverty in their retirement. "
Yes, exactly. Was it in the 70s that Social Security turned into a middle class entitlement?
86. arkymalarky - May 5, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
Who "presents" Social Security? And no one has to be moved by it. It's the way a civilized society works. The elderly and children are taken care of. In addition, it removes people from the work force, opening up jobs for those who are supporting families.
BJ,
My father-in-law was a farmer, so yes, he fed America.
ProfEmeritus has it right, imo.
87. ProfEmeritus - May 5, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
Boba
I think it might be politically feasible if we had leadership who were savvy enough to sell a reduced payroll tax and yet achieve the fundamental goal of social security - like keeping Arky's father-in-law above the poverty line.
88. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
arky
What was the population of America during the 20 years he fed them all?
89. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Why do you guys consider it impossible for society to care for its elderly poor voluntarily, without the help of Senators and Congressmen in Washington?
90. CalGal - May 5, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
Arky,
If ProfEm has it right, then he thinks the payroll tax would be sharply reduced as a result.
Which would pretty much eliminate my objection of having the working wealthy pay more and more for a program that they won't participate in. They would *know* that in all likelihood they wouldn't be getting the money. It would be for insurance purposes only.
Makes sense to me.
91. arkymalarky - May 5, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
BJ, if you had any reading comprehension, I promise you that you would become a Liberal. As it stands, you're completely hopeless. Where, pray tell, did I say "all"?
92. BobaFett - May 5, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
Prof:
Nope. Remember the "Concorde Coalition"? They wanted to bring some reason to this debate. You know where they are now? Neither do I.
Retirees vote. The young don't. Not ever a calculation.
Clinton promised to save SS. He lied. He did nothing until this year, then he proposed a "plan" which would 1) not save SS and 2) would be defeated anyway. He knew it would be defeated, he *planned* on it being defeated. (Quick: Name three politicians who are among the most strongly against privatization. If you said Gephardt, Gore, and Jackson, you win.)
He just wanted to be able to propose *something* so he could claim he tried and the dirty Republicans fought him on it. He just wanted to throw the political hotpotato into Congress' lap. He wanted to lead from behind, as usual.
The Republicans, of course, are not going to propose anything. They learned their lesson when they proposed legislation to deal with medicare.
So what will happen? Will payroll taxes have to be jerked up into the stratosphere? Will the US rack up debt to pay its gray tab? Who knows? No one's going to do anything about it, so you might as well just cross your fingers and hope for the best.
93. ProfEmeritus - May 5, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
Boba
All I have to say to you is get yourself a program (such as I propose) and get your fellow youngsters out to vote.
94. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
Arky
I'm just identifying your attempt to illegitimately bolster the case for legalized theft by government
In an effort to enhance the reader's perception of his value you made the lofty claim that he "fed America." Why was it not enough to say that he worked all his life and supported himself and his family?
Does a fry cook "feed America"? Does a gas station operator "fuel America?" How about a wealthy investor? Does he "fund America?"
In a free market each individual attempts to enhance his own situation. He/she does so by serving others. A farmer is no different than anyone else. He grows food and provides it to others. In return he receives money which is a claim on the labor of others who are also striving to improve their own situation.
Nobody is entitled to receive the fruits of the labor of others just because they participated in the free market in the past. Everyone who labors is compensated for his labor at the time. If the government didn't take so much people could save/invest for their own retirement.
95. AuNaturel - May 5, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
"Remember the "Concord Coalition""
Yeah. They suffered the grapes of wrath of those drunk with entitlements.
96. AuNaturel - May 5, 1999 - 5:29 PM PT
"Remember the "Concorde Coalition""
They got crushed into a political jam.
97. AuNaturel - May 5, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
"Remember the "Concorde Coalition""
Yes. They couldn't break the sound bite barrier.
98. Greystoke - May 5, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
I say let's promote the idea (which is true) that thed elderly are a burden on society, especially a burden on their heirs. Every seventy-year-old that blows his own brains out, or overdoses on his medication, or warms his car up just a little too long with the garage door closed is doing his patriotic duty.
Old people: kill yourselves before we have to do it for you.
99. BoomerJeff - May 5, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
Boba #92 has it right. Clinton has ONE goal that consumes him from morning to night...well two goals. We all know what the first one is about, that "personal life" one.
But his second goal, his political/presidential goal is very simple: Cause the public perception of Republicans to sour. Every word he says, every proposal he makes, every minute he is not boinking some babe he is working on that one goal.
His Social Security proposal had two poison pills:
1. Partial privatization which the liberals find intolerable.
2. Government officials make the investment decisions which Conservatives find intolerable.
Thus, he is assured that there'll be no support at all, from either side of the isle. And he doesn't want any support.
To Bill Clinton SS is just another propagand vehicle.
100. arkymalarky - May 5, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
"I'm just identifying your attempt to illegitimately bolster the case for legalized theft by government."
BJ, this is a *society* and many people in it do not get paid enough to feed and clothe their families *and* provide for their own retirement. The work they do is important to the functioning of *society*, and a civilized society provides them with a minimum amount of care when they become elderly.
"In an effort to enhance the reader's perception of his value you made the lofty claim that he 'fed America.' "
His value needs no enhancement. It's not a lofty claim to say farmers feed the nation.
"If the government didn't take so much people could save/invest for their own retirement."
No...you maybe, but not a lot of Americans.