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.
True the baby boomers are stealing but not nearly as much as the poor.
Think about it all the debt is from social security Medicare and welfare which go overwhelmingly to the poor. We get rid of this wealth distribution and we can save this country.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure about most of the Medicare going to the poor (MediCAID maybe, not MediCARE). A lot of poor people don't live as long, so they don't use Medicare as much as more well off folks.
Boomers are providing the majority of the tax revenue, without them the debt would be even worse with so many (mostly younger) people benefiting from the many entitlements. Social Security and medicare they have paid for over their working lives. Have a look at your check stub some time. Take those two line items and multiply times 24 for a year, then 40-50 for the working years and see what it adds up to. Then that can be multiplied again by as much as 10 times for those boomers that were in high paying jobs.
This has been said a GAZILLION times now. The average person collects MUCH more in Social Security and Medicare than they and their employers ever put in. That's not demonizing anyone. It's just the reality of the situation. It's human nature to notice how much you've paid in but to underestimate or ignore the cost of what you're taking. We see this over and over and over again.
Are you saying property taxes should increase with the rate of inflation?
Yes, property taxes should increase at the very least with the rate of inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
I agree that it does benefit long-term owners. That doesn't mean the long term owner is older, though. A person in their 40's could have purchased a home at the age of 20 (first time buyer) and still lives in the home.
Of course the long-term owner is older..... Very few people can purchase a home when they are 20, that is especially true in California. Prop 13 benefits those that have owned 30+ years the most, the vast majority of which are 55+.
Its odd that you're trying to argue that there isn't any subsidies, yet gloat about it.
"Being in the drivers seat", really? I started working in 1962, Lived in Napa California making two fifty an hour no bennies, went to Seattle 1964 no bennies, worked for three bucks an hour, 1974 making seven dollars an hour no bennies, 1984 ten bucks no bennies, 1994, in a union getting bennies but still not making the kind of money that people on Wall Street my age were making. Are you seeing any reality here that doesn't jibe with your take on the "boomers" being the root of all evil?
This is amusing, do you think this is an example of hardship? That shows how out of touch you are with today's world. $2.50/hour in 1962 is equivalent to $19.00/hour today. I know a lot of 20 somethings that would love to make that much right now. $7.00/hour in 1974 is equivalent to $32.00.
What I'm seeing here jibes very well with my take on boomers, boomers are entitled and think their past salaries that are high by today's standards represent some sort of hardship because there were people on wal-street making more.
I have never suggested that "all boomers" have worked to undermine America, instead that their collective actions have had numerous negative consequences and the economy, tax structure, etc is all set-up to transfer a lot of wealth from younger generations to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
If you are going to complain about the wrongs in America please do your self a favor and focus on the real truth of class division and class privilege, that's the key to understanding the entire lopsided construct that we call "the economy"..............
Class division in the US is an entirely different topic, one that doesn't negate this topic. These issues aren't mutually exclusive, you can have a lopsided distribution wealth and have transfers of wealth between the younger generation to the boomers.
But I'm glad you mentioned it, the increased lopsidedness of American society over the last 3 decades is yet another why younger generations have it harder. The "greatest generation" left the boomers a society with a small (historically speaking) gap between working class and rich....the boomer significantly widen this gap. Today its just as bad as it was in the 1920's......
Yes, property taxes should increase at the very least with the rate of inflation.
That's pretty interesting that you think that. I'm trying to imagine what that would be like for all homeowners, not just the older ones, that you seem to have such an issue with. Imagine what would happen if all people who owned a home and each year, the taxes increased two or three, four or even five percent when their wages didn't increase, at all. How soon do you think it would take before they couldn't afford to live there any longer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Of course the long-term owner is older..... Very few people can purchase a home when they are 20, that is especially true in California. Prop 13 benefits those that have owned 30+ years the most, the vast majority of which are 55+.
True. In today's market, it is very difficult for a young person of 20 to purchase a house. Much fewer doing it than back in the early 70's. I was 20 when my spouse and I purchased our first home. Our down payment was 20% and that wasn't easy to save but we gave up a lot of perks to do it. I know that's not the norm but we didn't really like renting so it was the best way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Its odd that you're trying to argue that there isn't any subsidies, yet gloat about it.
I'll concede that information about Prop 13 classifies it as a subsidy. Remember, though. It's not a "subsidy" that was freely given by the government. It was an Initiative placed on the Ballot by California voters. They were the ones that voted it in. The state and each county had to adjust their own budgets. Still, many of the counties managed to spend more than they brought in, made bad decisions with regard to pension perks (free lifetime medical) and ... oops ... eventually had to file bankruptcy.
As for me gloating ... I'm not gloating. I know the comment you are referring to and I was just being ornery with you. I don't have anything like that. Thankfully, I am able to pay my taxes but I'm certainly glad it's there for many people who have trouble each month. Isn't it time to pull your head out of the sand, userid, and see that not all boomers are wealthy? There is a huge population of them that, thanks to this last Recession, worry about their future. I feel bad for the younger generation. I have two adult children of my own who have gone through some pretty tough times in the past six years. One lost his business because of the Recession and the other has student loan debt almost equivalent to the price of a couple Corvettes. When you're young, you have time to make up for losses but when you reach an age where you can no longer work and have lost a good portion of money, earmarked for retirement, all a person can do is move on. There is no starting over. Again, just try to remember that not every baby boomer on city-data is a wealthy one. That's all I'm sayin'
I sense that a number of posters here may be young and angry about the current state of affairs in our economy. But, I don't understand the vitriol regarding their parents generation.
I like to forget how old I'm getting, but I don't think I qualify as young anymore. Nor am I angry. I'm just looking at the US economy and seeing the obvious, its currently set-up to transfer wealth from younger generations to older generations. m To say it again, the fact that its also set-up to transfer wealth from the working-class/middle class to the wealthy is a different matter.
Also, my generation (Gen-X), is in the middle somewhere. We didn't have it as nice as the boomers, but we had it easier than Gen-Y and the coming Gen-Z. When I went to college the tuition was around $3,800/year, that was for a top 50 public university here in California. Today the tuition is around $12,000.... Yet....the boomers are still getting their entitlements. I'm not so much angry for my generation, I'm angry at the boomers for what they are doing to younger generations. Its just terrible....and it will destroy the nation.
Imagine what would happen if all people who owned a home and each year, the taxes increased two or three, four or even five percent when their wages didn't increase, at all. How soon do you think it would take before they couldn't afford to live there any longer?
Over time wages increase with inflation. If an individual finds that his wage isn't keeping up with inflation, well, that is just to say that he has received a pay cut. Why should his/her property taxes be less? They are property taxes, not income taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
Isn't it time to pull your head out of the sand, userid, and see that not all boomers are wealthy? There is a huge population of them that, thanks to this last Recession, worry about their future.
This is silly, when did I ever suggest that all boomers are wealthy? To say it again, the issue is that the economy is currently set-up to transfer wealth to the boomers from younger generations. You see this almost every where you look. Prop 13 is just one example.
Over time wages increase with inflation. If an individual finds that his wage isn't keeping up with inflation, well, that is just to say that he has received a pay cut. Why should his/her property taxes be less? They are property taxes, not income taxes.
Okay. Now I know you're smokin' something! That has to be the weirdest comment I've read here today. First off, wages don't always go up annually. Yeah, some employers give COL increases, many don't. And another thing, not all wages are a certain $$ amount. They are percentage raises and those are the most inequitable of any. The person making more is going to get a bigger raise. But that's not what this is about.
It's absolutely ridiculous to keep raising the price of everything if the alternative is a bigger wage increase. It does nothing except lead people to believe they are making more money so they can afford more. Q: Why do you think they keep raising the minimum wage? A: To keep up with inflation. It doesn't mean people are making a better wage, it's only to close the gap a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
This is silly, when did I ever suggest that all boomers are wealthy? To say it again, the issue is that the economy is currently set-up to transfer wealth to the boomers from younger generations. You see this almost every where you look. Prop 13 is just one example.
Prop 13 doesn't seem to be such a bad thing, I guess. I was just reading that some other states in the nation might have something similar. I think the people back east would welcome a little relief. When the value of their home goes down, yet their taxes go up, it's just ludicrous. Further, excluding the expensive metro areas, many communities back east have homes that are very reasonable. The only reasonably priced homes in California right now are the last of the foreclosures and short-sales. Once those are gone, it'll be hard to find a home under 200K.
This has been said a GAZILLION times now. The average person collects MUCH more in Social Security and Medicare than they and their employers ever put in. That's not demonizing anyone. It's just the reality of the situation. It's human nature to notice how much you've paid in but to underestimate or ignore the cost of what you're taking. We see this over and over and over again.
No doubt... the part that is overlooked is any investment table will show the end result of dollars invested at even a low percentage will double every 7 to 12 years... so in 40 years the account balance should be much higher then just the sum of the dollars collected.
And... this fails to consider those that have paid in a lifetime and die... which in certain professions can average just several years in retirement.
Of course the long-term owner is older..... Very few people can purchase a home when they are 20, that is especially true in California. Prop 13 benefits those that have owned 30+ years the most, the vast majority of which are 55+.
Wrong... very few people want to purchase the home they can afford when in their twenties...
Many can buy homes they would never want to live in and this is a big part of the problem.
I was 21 or 22 when I bought the home I could afford with money that I had earned and saved over 10 years... it was enough for a down payment in a good area or enough to buy a home for cash in a home set for condemnation and gain equity with sweat.
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.
