Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Markg91359 was trying to talk about is finding a way forward which is reasonably fair to all generations. He is talking about attitudes which mitigate against this. Going on an emotional rant about stupid politicians doesn't really address the issue he brought up. We got to the present point somehow, but bellyaching about how that happened doesn't address policy about how to go from the present point in order to assure Social Security and Medicare beyond the next 20 years. And while I cannot disagree about politicians in general (they are indeed stupid and self-serving), the biggest single factor in the sustainability of Social Security is demographics - the fact that people started having fewer and fewer children in the late 1950's, or perhaps it was in the 1960's. Politicians did not create those demographics; modern science (birth control and less need for manual labor) did. What is helpful in these discussions is more rationality of the sort that Markg91359 gives and less emotional ranting.
If I had been told at the age of 21 or so that SS/Medicare would have greatly reduced benefits for me, fine. I would have time to adapt and plan accordingly. Telling me to just suck it up at age 60 doesn't work.
Especially with the economy in the tidy bowl and few decent jobs available. There's no way for me to make up that kind of money now. I lost quite a few of what should have been my high earning years. Just like most other people, I planned based on what I was told was available.
Here's the good news for everyone who thinks the boomers should bear the brunt of all these problems so these programs will be available for future generations. Hooray for you for saving and being LUCKY/skilled in this lousy economy. No one is going to force you to sign up for SS/Medicare. Feel free to leave yours in trust for future generations. We salute you and thank you. But not all of us can afford to do without what we were promised. If you can, great!
Entitlements, bah! To me that word invokes images/negative connotations of people expecting to get something they didn't earn or pay for. I earned everything I stand to get and I paid in plenty. And I'm still paying. After paying in for 50 years, yes, I expect to get something back. Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
Yes, the word "entitlement" is ambiguous and emotionally loaded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow
Entitlements, bah! To me that word invokes images/negative connotations of people expecting to get something they didn't earn or pay for. I earned everything I stand to get and I paid in plenty. And I'm still paying. After paying in for 50 years, yes, I expect to get something back. Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
I agree that the word "entitlement" is problematic. In one sense, it evokes the welfare mentality, someone with a hand out waiting for the hand-out. You are entitled to your Social Security in the good sense, because you've earned it by paying into it. I cringed when I first saw that word in the thread title, even though it's not technically wrong.
If I had been told at the age of 21 or so that SS/Medicare would have greatly reduced benefits for me, fine. I would have time to adapt and plan accordingly. Telling me to just suck it up at age 60 doesn't work.
BAH! I remember hearing about how defunct Social Insecurity was TWENTY YEARS AGO!
And I'm SURE it was being bandied about prior to that... that's just about as far back as I remember! (On that subject)
Other than that:
Social Insecurity was NEVER INTENDED TO BE YOUR RETIREMENT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow
Especially with the economy in the tidy bowl and few decent jobs available. There's no way for me to make up that kind of money now. I lost quite a few of what should have been my high earning years. Just like most other people, I planned based on what I was told was available.
Here's the good news for everyone who thinks the boomers should bear the brunt of all these problems so these programs will be available for future generations. Hooray for you for saving and being LUCKY/skilled in this lousy economy. No one is going to force you to sign up for SS/Medicare. Feel free to leave yours in trust for future generations. We salute you and thank you. But not all of us can afford to do without what we were promised. If you can, great!
Entitlements, bah! To me that word invokes images/negative connotations of people expecting to get something they didn't earn or pay for. I earned everything I stand to get and I paid in plenty. And I'm still paying. After paying in for 50 years, yes, I expect to get something back. Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
BAH #2:
LOL, Tell you what: Go RIGHT AHEAD and get your money "Back"
But DON'T STEAL MY Money and say you are "Getting YOURS back!!!"
So GO RIGHT AHEAD, and "Get yours back..." SO long as it's not your 'cover term' for STEALING FROM ME!
Quote:
Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
If I had been told at the age of 21 or so that SS/Medicare would have greatly reduced benefits for me, fine. I would have time to adapt and plan accordingly. Telling me to just suck it up at age 60 doesn't work.
Especially with the economy in the tidy bowl and few decent jobs available. There's no way for me to make up that kind of money now. I lost quite a few of what should have been my high earning years. Just like most other people, I planned based on what I was told was available.
Here's the good news for everyone who thinks the boomers should bear the brunt of all these problems so these programs will be available for future generations. Hooray for you for saving and being LUCKY/skilled in this lousy economy. No one is going to force you to sign up for SS/Medicare. Feel free to leave yours in trust for future generations. We salute you and thank you. But not all of us can afford to do without what we were promised. If you can, great!
Entitlements, bah! To me that word invokes images/negative connotations of people expecting to get something they didn't earn or pay for. I earned everything I stand to get and I paid in plenty. And I'm still paying. After paying in for 50 years, yes, I expect to get something back. Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
I agree with every bit of this. We paid the piper for 30+ years and now it's time to collect. It's a new world now - for those coming up - they will plan differently and will have the same expectations when they retire that what they worked and planned for will be there - rightfully so.
If I had been told at the age of 21 or so that SS/Medicare would have greatly reduced benefits for me, fine. I would have time to adapt and plan accordingly. Telling me to just suck it up at age 60 doesn't work.
In 1977, every media outlet in the country declared that the Trust Fund was bankrupt. I distinctly remember sitting down with my now ex-spouse and discussing the issue. Social Security: Has the Crisis Passed? (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-weaver.html - broken link) In the 1980s, the media again disclosed that the Trust Fund was in trouble. In addition, I still have my SSA estimates of benefits from 2002, and all of those estimates clearly state that the estimates are based on current law, and further states that Congress can and has changed the law throughout history. The younger generation may believe that we didn't have any notice, but there are those of us still around that remember otherwise and there is sufficient documentation to refute your assertion.
Especially with the economy in the tidy bowl and few decent jobs available. There's no way for me to make up that kind of money now. I lost quite a few of what should have been my high earning years. Just like most other people, I planned based on what I was told was available.
I agree about the availability of jobs and its negative impact on seniors, but that doesn't negate the need for reform. You may have "planned" your retirement based on the amount of benefits you thought were available, but that is not the same as planning on what you were told was available.
Here's the good news for everyone who thinks the boomers should bear the brunt of all these problems so these programs will be available for future generations. Hooray for you for saving and being LUCKY/skilled in this lousy economy. No one is going to force you to sign up for SS/Medicare. Feel free to leave yours in trust for future generations. We salute you and thank you. But not all of us can afford to do without what we were promised. If you can, great!
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the retirees bear the brunt of all these problems. The point is that, in general, boomers should not be exempt from the burden.
Entitlements, bah! To me that word invokes images/negative connotations of people expecting to get something they didn't earn or pay for. I earned everything I stand to get and I paid in plenty. And I'm still paying. After paying in for 50 years, yes, I expect to get something back. Not because I'm entitled to it but because I earned it.
What we did not plan for is divorce, disability and an economy that crashed.
Most Americans planned on the equity in their homes being their savings but the bankers took that leaving the baby boom broke. That's why places like Florida, Arizona and Las Vegas, which planned on those boomers moving there when they retired, now have miles of unoccupied houses that were built for them. If we cut entitlements at this point we will have a depression
I agree with every bit of this. We paid the piper for 30+ years and now it's time to collect. It's a new world now - for those coming up - they will plan differently and will have the same expectations when they retire that what they worked and planned for will be there - rightfully so.
The needed changes to SS are not that draconian and for the most part impact retirement age by a couple of years. Medicare is another story.
Most Americans planned on the equity in their homes being their savings but the bankers took that leaving the baby boom broke. That's why places like Florida, Arizona and Las Vegas, which planned on those boomers moving there when they retired, now have miles of unoccupied houses that were built for them. If we cut entitlements at this point we will have a depression
The equity in the homes of Boomers is pretty much still there to the degree it legitimately should have been. It is the excess and false equity boom from about 2004-07 that is gone. With such massive defaults and short sales it is sorta hard to say the bankers took that equity because the banks took a beating. Who took that equity?
A. Folks who cashed in before the crash like many of the readers and posters of this forum
B. No one because like a stock if it wasn't sold it wasn't realized. It I buy a stock at $50 per share and it sky rockets to $100 per share and I sit on it and it goes back to $50 a share no one took my profit. However the folks who bought at $50 and sold at $80 took theirs.
The problem with planning on the equity in your home is that it isn' real money. It doesn't exist in reality and is only really created when cashed in some way or the other. That might be a home equity loan or a reverse mortgage or the sale of the home etc. Just looking at the appraisal report/assessment hasn't given you a darn thing. That is what so many missed who thought they were house rich. Nada Nada. Not until you create potential into reality. I started a thread some time ago about how to capture the equity in your house for just this reason. It was interesting how much of the issue was understood and how much was missed. How do you most efficiently capture it and still have a place to live? Two homes might work for some.
Most Americans planned on the equity in their homes being their savings but the bankers took that leaving the baby boom broke.
The mega banks are indeed guilty of many things, but the home equity which disappeared was not "taken" by anybody. It is not at all analagous to your having a bunch of cash sitting on your dining room table and somebody took half of it. All that equity was paper gain, not real gain, except for the few that sold at exactly the right time and didn't buy anything else with that money at those wildly inflated prices. Nobody "took" the equity because it wasn't real to begin with; it was an illusion. In fact the banks suffered (and continue to suffer) directly from that loss of equity as they are left holding the bag of loans not repaid and the collateral inadequate to cover the value of the loans.
Now whose fault was the housing bubble? It cuts three ways: First, we consumers were at fault for our greed and lack of common sense. Second, the banks were at fault for making loans to anybody with a pulse. And third, the politicians were at fault for pressuring the banks to make those loans on the grounds that "minorities" were having trouble getting loans at the same rate as other groups.
Life is messy and complex, so having a single convenient scapegoat often just doesn't work out if we care about the whole truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, the word "entitlement" is ambiguous and emotionally loaded.
