Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-05-2020, 04:00 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
But the first generation to actually retire at 65 on Social Security was the early Boomers, pretty much. At the time that SS was created, no one had even contributed yet. They couldn't collect until after. having contributed a minimum number of years. That meant, the last cohort of the WWII generation, and the early Boomers.
Nope, my mother was born long before a Boomer was even thought of and when she reached 65 she drew SS for her work and SS payments in the 1970's. The Boomers were not the first to get it. It started being paid before any Boomer was born.


January 1937


A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.


https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


No Boomers in 1940.


Everyone who worked the minimum time required after paying SS was given it. Boomers were not first. Their older brothers and sisters, their parents and grandparents were. Say thank you to (D) President Roosevelt for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2020, 04:02 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Yeah have fun with not practicing reading comprehension right? Because that's what you did there.
Sure I didn't read the post and the info I posted. Did you?



The Boomers did not sell the idea of it, the party that instituted it did before and after they were born.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2020, 04:06 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,089 posts, read 107,163,173 times
Reputation: 115885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer46 View Post
Nope, my mother was born long before a Boomer was even thought of and when she reached 65 she drew SS for her work and SS payments in the 1970's. The Boomers were not the first to get it. It started being paid before any Boomer was born.


January 1937


A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.


https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


No Boomers in 1940.


Everyone who worked the minimum time required after paying SS was given it. Boomers were not first. Their older brothers and sisters, their parents and grandparents were. Say thank you to (D) President Roosevelt for it.
I see, you're right. If someone started paying into it at 30, say, in 1940, they'd be 60 in 1970, and could collect at 62. Thanks for helping with the math.

I wonder what people did, who reached retirement age in SS's early days, around 1940, say. What did your grandparents do, to fund their retirement?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2020, 04:15 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
I see, you're right. If someone started paying into it at 30, say, in 1940, they'd be 60 in 1970, and could collect at 62. Thanks for helping with the math.

I wonder what people did, who reached retirement age in SS's early days, around 1940, say. What did your grandparents do, to fund their retirement?
You are welcome. I usually do not disagree with you on most of your posts.


My grandparents died in the 1950's so I do not know if they did or not, but likely did.


The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security. In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942. (Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.)


https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2020, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,940,147 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer46 View Post
Sure I didn't read the post and the info I posted. Did you?



The Boomers did not sell the idea of it, the party that instituted it did before and after they were born.
The boomers were the largest generation to buy into it and were the biggest force in driving this way of thinking since the 60s. This despite inflation across the board (tuition costs, housing costs, food costs) and with salaries that did not keep up with this. It was boomers telling their Gen-X and millenial kids to go to these universities because they did raising debt for millenials who don't need it. Luckily millenials aren't telling their zoomer kids the same thing at nearly the same rate.

Boomers had the opportunity to fight off this terrible meme of working for 5-7 decades before retiring and now they want everyone else to pay for it.

You cherry picked my post instead of reading what I was saying. Hope you get it now.

Edit: Also I dont necessarily blame boomers either because it wasn't them pulling the strings on this trainwreck (central bankers and politicians are the real culprits) but they could have stopped it before it got as worse as it is. Now we have a whole stock market propped up on fake money.

Last edited by DabOnEm; 09-05-2020 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2020, 06:04 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
The boomers were the largest generation to buy into it and were the biggest force in driving this way of thinking since the 60s. This despite inflation across the board (tuition costs, housing costs, food costs) and with salaries that did not keep up with this. It was boomers telling their Gen-X and millenial kids to go to these universities because they did raising debt for millenials who don't need it. Luckily millenials aren't telling their zoomer kids the same thing at nearly the same rate.

Boomers had the opportunity to fight off this terrible meme of working for 5-7 decades before retiring and now they want everyone else to pay for it.

You cherry picked my post instead of reading what I was saying. Hope you get it now.

Edit: Also I dont necessarily blame boomers either because it wasn't them pulling the strings on this trainwreck (central bankers and politicians are the real culprits) but they could have stopped it before it got as worse as it is. Now we have a whole stock market propped up on fake money.
Actually SS is worst now for two reasons and neither involve the Boomers as a group.


1. The Dems pushed for the fund that SS was paid into, to be abolished and the money go into the general fund and then... the Gov spent it all as the Republicans supported it too. The costs went up and the amount "available" as it were is running out. The original fund was invested and made money to help. You may not have been around when Clinton's VP, Al Gore ran on a promise to put the funds in a "lock box".



2. Life expectancy was just a few years for most when the SS act was passed.


Both of these raised the cost and reduced the funds available to go to those who paid for into it.


Now as to the tuition costs, simply a money grab that Boomers also recognized with the COL going up their kids had to get better paying jobs. Well some did, I didn't and my daughter worked for the IRS without that level of education. I never went beyond HS, but my worth is wayyy more than I ever thought it would be. Hard work and watching how I spend my money. Unlike most people in the later generations today. Oh I am still working and beyond 65 in age. My Brother (1/2 brother) is even older and also works in his own businesses.

Last edited by Racer46; 09-05-2020 at 07:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2020, 12:10 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,089 posts, read 107,163,173 times
Reputation: 115885
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
The boomers were the largest generation to buy into it and were the biggest force in driving this way of thinking since the 60s. This despite inflation across the board (tuition costs, housing costs, food costs) and with salaries that did not keep up with this. It was boomers telling their Gen-X and millenial kids to go to these universities because they did raising debt for millenials who don't need it. Luckily millenials aren't telling their zoomer kids the same thing at nearly the same rate.

Boomers had the opportunity to fight off this terrible meme of working for 5-7 decades before retiring and now they want everyone else to pay for it.

You cherry picked my post instead of reading what I was saying. Hope you get it now.

Edit: Also I dont necessarily blame boomers either because it wasn't them pulling the strings on this trainwreck (central bankers and politicians are the real culprits) but they could have stopped it before it got as worse as it is. Now we have a whole stock market propped up on fake money.
Who works 7 decades? How many people are even still alive after they started working after college? Few. even work 5 decades. A lot of people retire as soon as they. can which for. some, means after 25 years, as soon as they're eligible for a pension. I know Boomers who retired after 25 years with their company, at 47. Banks still have cushy deals like that, for their higher-ups. Others retire after 30-40 years. Those who either love their work or need the money keep going until 70, which means around 45-50. years, when their max SS kicks in. Then you have a few rare ones, who keep going until they keel. An entire cohort of Microsoft employees retired in their 30's and early 40's, back in the 1980's.

The problem with the job system now is, that too many employers require a BA or at least a 2-year AA degree for anyone to get in the door. One exception is construction, but in order to make the good salary, you need to get journeyman status, and that's just more schooling. And more and more, factory jobs, manufacturing jobs (the ones that still exist) require complex math and engineering skills. US workers don't qualify, unless they got lucky and covered that in HS, or their employer paid for a special 2-year program.

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-06-2020 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2020, 12:36 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,089 posts, read 107,163,173 times
Reputation: 115885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer46 View Post
Actually SS is worst now for two reasons and neither involve the Boomers as a group.


1. The Dems pushed for the fund that SS was paid into, to be abolished and the money go into the general fund and then... the Gov spent it all as the Republicans supported it too. The costs went up and the amount "available" as it were is running out. The original fund was invested and made money to help. You may not have been around when Clinton's VP, Al Gore ran on a promise to put the funds in a "lock box".
.
Could you explain what period or legislation you're referencing here? What "general fund"? Nixon combined SS benefits "for the aged" as it was understood then, with disability support. Johnson combined the benefit for the aged with Medicare. When was the action you describe taken, and why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2020, 01:55 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Could you explain what period or legislation you're referencing here? What "general fund"? Nixon combined SS benefits "for the aged" as it was understood then, with disability support. Johnson combined the benefit for the aged with Medicare. When was the action you describe taken, and why?
Read here.


It is complex.


https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html


Some of the claims then, and I was an adult then, were like the ones today. basically false but used for political reasons. Kinda like Gore's wanting a "Lock Box"

https://www.ntu.org/publications/det...gores-lock-box


The funds have been borrowed by the Gov but covered by bonds. the full amount exists in the bonds, which do increase the amount in the trust, but the full amount of "cash" is not there. The amount being received and the bond interest, is not enough for the growth needed to pay the aged retired in full, after about 2034.

Last edited by Racer46; 09-06-2020 at 02:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2020, 02:08 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,755,862 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Could you explain what period or legislation you're referencing here? What "general fund"? Nixon combined SS benefits "for the aged" as it was understood then, with disability support. Johnson combined the benefit for the aged with Medicare. When was the action you describe taken, and why?
Read here.


It is complex.


https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html


Gore claimed a need.


https://www.ntu.org/publications/det...gores-lock-box


The reality is that the "cash" was used by the Government and covered by bonds with interest. Even then the amount being received now will in effect quit being enough for the aged on SS to cover the full amount, about 2034.


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...l-securit.aspx



Both parties supported these actions, but the political claims are usually where falsehood enters into the discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top