Zobel said:

---

"lol it's going to be funny if you turn out to be a selfish ahole like me"

---

We don't have to wait for that. You're already there trying to steal from the elderly.

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

Lol, you haven't tried a serious discussion from the OP all the way to here. And your pitch has been all about stealing, although it's wrapped in guilt-shaming, condescension, and distortion of the facts. It's opened my eyes though to how desperate some of the younger generation is to skip out on their obligations to society -- paying into SS -- that many others before you have done faithfully for 90 years. I say "some" because fortunately there are still a lot of fine people in the younger generations who will do the right thing and work constructively to address the challenges of tomorrow.

you're welcome to your own opinions, but when you lie, that's out of bounds.

i haven't advocated a single time to reduce my own payment into social security - only my own benefit. i've said that to you multiple times - once here, for example.

the only cut to benefits that i've advocated for are means testing and a flat reduction that's less than what happens in the do-nothing case, and raising the retirement age, and capping or cutting the program to people younger than me. in other words, making it so i will pay and never get the benefit.

you should walk it back. if you have integrity you'd apologize - i'll leave that up to you.

You have bled all over this thread trying to tell current/near retirees that they should refuse some or all of their retirement benefit out of a sense of virtue, and if they don't, then they are selfish people.

Other buddies of yours have also chimed in they want to yank their contributions into SS because "screw the boomers."

All of that is there, in multiple posts, throughout this thread. Don't act now like the only thing you posted was that you should give up some of your benefits for the good of society. No sir, that is not all you put out there and you know it. It's there in the thread.

Anyway, I'm done again. This has been a very instructive exchange, though. I know better what to look out for in the months and years ahead and will be active with my elected representatives to "stop the steal."

yes, current retirees should politically support a plan that reduces some or all of their benefits, just like current payers should. we're in this mess together, it is far better to get out together. not supporting a plan will likely end up resulting in a worse outcome for them - because the status quo is (as you know) a 20-25% benefit cut in the near future.

Eh, as to the rest of it, it's not worth it. Merry Christmas. You're right I'm wrong.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

Lol, you haven't tried a serious discussion from the OP all the way to here. And your pitch has been all about stealing, although it's wrapped in guilt-shaming, condescension, and distortion of the facts. It's opened my eyes though to how desperate some of the younger generation is to skip out on their obligations to society -- paying into SS -- that many others before you have done faithfully for 90 years. I say "some" because fortunately there are still a lot of fine people in the younger generations who will do the right thing and work constructively to address the challenges of tomorrow.

---

Oh yeah, how convenient that it's our obligation to pay taxes for the benefits that your already-wealthy generation is receiving, in order to leave an empty husk when it's our turn to retire.

You're Exhibit A for why the Boomers are hated.

There's been a good amount of trolls here trying to derail any real conversation. This is Texags after all. I think some others are lashing back (out of guilt) when it is pointed out that getting "their share" will leave the rest of us with higher taxes and less / no benefits while piling on the growing debt. Still not sure the ratio of no retirement savings, trolls, low info voters / bad at math, and those actually without a conscience - hope there's fewer of the last one.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

Lol, you haven't tried a serious discussion from the OP all the way to here. And your pitch has been all about stealing, although it's wrapped in guilt-shaming, condescension, and distortion of the facts. It's opened my eyes though to how desperate some of the younger generation is to skip out on their obligations to society -- paying into SS -- that many others before you have done faithfully for 90 years. I say "some" because fortunately there are still a lot of fine people in the younger generations who will do the right thing and work constructively to address the challenges of tomorrow.

---

Oh yeah, how convenient that it's our obligation to pay taxes for the benefits that your already-wealthy generation is receiving, in order to leave an empty husk when it's our turn to retire.

You're Exhibit A for why the Boomers are hated.

---

Let's be honest. Your issue isn't with the boomers. You are afraid there won't be anybody to pay for your benefit when the time comes, so you want to take it from the boomers instead.

Why should you not pay your 6.2% of wages that everybody else has paid? Why are you so special that you get let off the train? Seriously.

Zobel said:

---

yes, current retirees should politically support a plan that reduces some or all of their benefits, just like current payers should. we're in this mess together, it is far better to get out together. not supporting a plan will likely end up resulting in a worse outcome for them - because the status quo is (as you know) a 20-25% benefit cut in the near future.

Eh, as to the rest of it, it's not worth it. Merry Christmas. You're right I'm wrong.

---

Not many will vote for that and the 20-25% benefit cut won't happen either. Without term limits, Congress would not propose reducing some or all of the benefits for current retirees. Nor will they let the talked about benefit cut take place. Both would be political suicide. They will do like they do for everything else in the budget: deficit spend. Just be more overdrawn.

They may do away with the social security wage limit, tweak a few things perhaps, but our system isn't set up for massive changes such as this or a huge change in our system of taxation.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Oh yeah, how convenient that it's our obligation to pay taxes for the benefits that your already-wealthy generation is receiving, in order to leave an empty husk when it's our turn to retire.

You're Exhibit A for why the Boomers are hated.

---

Did the "already-wealthy generation" become so illegally? Of course not. Perhaps you should emulate the "already-wealthy generation" and become wealthy yourself.

one safe place said:

---

Zobel said:

---

yes, current retirees should politically support a plan that reduces some or all of their benefits, just like current payers should. we're in this mess together, it is far better to get out together. not supporting a plan will likely end up resulting in a worse outcome for them - because the status quo is (as you know) a 20-25% benefit cut in the near future.

Eh, as to the rest of it, it's not worth it. Merry Christmas. You're right I'm wrong.

---

Not many will vote for that and the 20-25% benefit cut won't happen either. Without term limits, Congress would not propose reducing some or all of the benefits for current retirees. Nor will they let the talked about benefit cut take place. Both would be political suicide. They will do like they do for everything else in the budget: deficit spend. Just be more overdrawn.

They may do away with the social security wage limit, tweak a few things perhaps, but our system isn't set up for massive changes such as this or a huge change in our system of taxation.

---

This. We cannot fix anything without either limiting elected officials to a single term or limiting suffrage to those with skin in the game.

That it. Do one of the above or just pissing into the wind.

Quote:

---

Let's be honest. Your issue isn't with the boomers. You are afraid there won't be anybody to pay for your benefit when the time comes, so you want to take it from the boomers instead.

Why should you not pay your 6.2% of wages that everybody else has paid? Why are you so special that you get let off the train? Seriously.

---

What's "special" is that we're the first generation to be told "You have to pay the same payroll taxes as your predecessors, but will at best receive 75% of the benefits."

It doesn't seem like a very good deal.

I am ok with this as long as we get a gutting of all social programs. That would suit me fine.

You do realize when it comes to income tax most people especially families pay nowhere close to what their fair share really is? The boomers should pay but so should everyone. Too many people are moochers.

backintexas2013 said:

---

You do realize when it comes to income tax most people especially families pay nowhere close to what their fair share really is? The boomers should pay but so should everyone. Too many people are moochers.

---

Exactly. I would argue with our current debt that anyone not paying a 15% effective rate in fed income taxes is not pulling their weight.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

Let's be honest. Your issue isn't with the boomers. You are afraid there won't be anybody to pay for your benefit when the time comes, so you want to take it from the boomers instead.

Why should you not pay your 6.2% of wages that everybody else has paid? Why are you so special that you get let off the train? Seriously.

---

What's "special" is that we're the first generation to be told "You have to pay the same payroll taxes as your predecessors, but will at best receive 75% of the benefits."

It doesn't seem like a very good deal.

---

So now we're getting to the heart of the issue. It's your future you're upset about, not those "selfish" old boomers who paid a lifetime of SS taxes as they were supposed to do.

Btw, it's perfectly rational to be concerned about your future. It's not selfish either, and I'm not going to call you that, unlike some who want to call boomers selfish for wanting what they were promised.

Let's put our effort into addressing concerns about the future without guilt-shaming current or near retirees. That would be a good step in the right direction.

one safe place said:

---

Zobel said:

---

yes, current retirees should politically support a plan that reduces some or all of their benefits, just like current payers should. we're in this mess together, it is far better to get out together. not supporting a plan will likely end up resulting in a worse outcome for them - because the status quo is (as you know) a 20-25% benefit cut in the near future.

Eh, as to the rest of it, it's not worth it. Merry Christmas. You're right I'm wrong.

---

Not many will vote for that and the 20-25% benefit cut won't happen either. Without term limits, Congress would not propose reducing some or all of the benefits for current retirees. Nor will they let the talked about benefit cut take place. Both would be political suicide. They will do like they do for everything else in the budget: deficit spend. Just be more overdrawn.

They may do away with the social security wage limit, tweak a few things perhaps, but our system isn't set up for massive changes such as this or a huge change in our system of taxation.

---

I without legislative action the benefit cut is automatic. So either that happens or a new law happens. I think you're probably right about the outcome - but I hope you're not. The only thing that can prevent that is a sentiment shift.

backintexas2013 said:

---

You do realize when it comes to income tax most people especially families pay nowhere close to what their fair share really is? The boomers should pay but so should everyone. Too many people are moochers.

---

Yes and I agree for all the same reasons.

To be clear it is not my future I'm concerned about. It's that of my children and the nation. I'm going to be fine, and if I'm not that's my own problem. And self-interest and selfishness aren't the same thing. Self-interest is rational, but when it comes to being a citizen in a republic it has to be balanced against civic virtue. If crosses from one to the other when you're willing to put your self interest above the good of the state.

A republic with a capitalist economy runs and thrives on self interest, but it dies with selfishness.

Edit to add: people will rightly criticize unions for killing their parent industries with self-interest, and that's related to this problem but actually different. In that case they're not being selfish, they're acting completely in rational self interest in the short term but they're doing it in a foolish way that is actually against their long term best interest. Here it's similar, but it risks slipping into selfishness because it's not a negotiation between parties but votes out of the public treasury. I'm glad this came up because I think that's a pretty important distinction to make.

Tom Fox said:

---

How much more than the $250k + FICA that I pay annually do I need to kick in?

I get the feeling that I am already doing my part.

---

But you're not doing more than you have to ......therein lies the complete lack of civic duty and civic virtue

I've got that same feeling though ....that I am doing and have done my part and am currently living and receiving the rewards of my efforts , so then we're really not that much different are we? Right?

BusterAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Boomers aren't the only issue. Look at the people screaming for free government healthcare or the losers who want their student loans forgiven because they "can't pay the back" and the thought of a second job is "being out of touch".


Every generation wants their pet projects and it all has to do with more government handouts. Ever notice it's always framed as "it's what we should do as a civil society" or my favorite "social contract". The "social contract" seems to only run one way. It's the producers giving to the non producers. It's never "stop having kids you can't afford" or "stop being fat tub of goo". It's always what can we take and give to others.

---

The poor will always be with us, and they will always want help.

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

I know lots of amazing boomers. Many of them hate their peers.

If we are trying to figure out societal wide solutions to fix societal wide problems, why should Boomers be exempt from the problems that they are most responsible for creating? I think it is fair to ask them to help clean up their own mess.

One thing I agree with Tom about is that we are in a mess. We just have different boogeymen to blame for how we got here and how to fix it, likely because who he knows and interacts with is very different from who I know and interact with.

---

Who are you going to blame when all the boomers are dead and gone? And it's a sure bet you will be blaming someone ......

---

Probably the gingers. No one likes red heads.

---

Now that was funny.....

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Boomers are the ones that control the power and the wealth of this country. They are the single largest voting bloc in America. It is, collectively, their decisions that got us into this mess. And they are the ones that are in the best position to do something positive.

They just don't have the nerve or the testicular fortitude to do it.

---

News flash for you! Boomers didn't create Social Security. It came to life in 1935, 11 years before the oldest boomer was born and 29 years before the youngest boomer. They had ZERO to do with its creation.

They were actually part of the solution in 1983 when legislation was passed to gradually increase the eligibility age for SS from 65 to 67. Boomers at that time would have been 37 and younger. All of them old enough to vote, and some of them serving in Congress.

Since that time, there has been no additional progress on reforming SS. While boomers have certainly been part of the voting population and legislators, the responsibility for inaction increasingly included GenX, Millenials, and even GenZ. All of those generations are of voting age, and many of the GenX and Millenials have been in legislative positions.

Why hasn't that mixed group of generations done anything about it? The ball has been in your court sir, and mine, and the other boomer bashers on this thread. If you want to point the finger for the approaching date in 2033 when SS tips into a cash-negative position since its inception, you need to first look in the mirror.

Of course it's not your fault solely. Nor mine, or anyone else on this thread. Blaming boomers for it might feel good in the moment, but it's a really lazy way of thinking about it. The facts show that many generations have not demanded action from their legislators to address the funding gap coming at us. We can still change the outcome, but it requires working together in a thoughtful, constructive way instead of the lazy finger pointing.

---

I actually have zero problems with SS as a plan. I actually think some form of safety net done well is important to society, and, as I have said in this tread, encourages rational risk-taking, which is value creating for our economy.

What I have a problem with is how unsustainable it has become, and how the people that are currently retired shouldn't have to share some of the pain of creating that problem. If the people that were paying into SS also voted in people that were fiscally responsible enough to make it sustainable, then I would have a lot of empathy for them.

But, we didn't do that. We didn't maintain a sustainable fiscal policy. Boomers were one of the very important demographics that created that. For them to complain that "we paid in, give us all that we owe" rings hollow when you are passing on these giant liabilities that you helped create.

It's a giant poop sandwich, and everyone is going to have to take a bite.

But, the Boomers have been in solid control of this economy and government for a while now, and it has gone downhill on a rocket sled.

If SS benefits get cut, it's part of their own damn fault, because they couldn't elect people that didn't give away free stuff to EREBODY.

I still think that part of the solution is to tax the crap out of the Boomers on their way out the door, since they were such a significant contributor to the problem, and the Gen Zers and Gen Xers haven't done anything to earn that "wealth" that the Boomers created anyways. They helped create this massive tax bill. They should help pay for it, the spoiled, self-interested brats.

---

How does it feel being probably the most intelligent person on the planet ? Can we use that same methodology on the Gen Zers and Gen Xers and Gen millennials and tax the crap out of them and all they built when they pass? What a mighty Republic we will be then.......just what the founding fathers had in mind.

Zobel said:

---

I'm really not sure why framing this becomes a personal issue.

---

Because you and others make it that way. You use the "boomer" term like a cudgel because it gets a response. And you are quick to blame people who don't want to lose their SS as greedy or perhaps worse, unpatriotic.

ETA: You -- and the guy who wrote the original article -- use the term "Total boomer luxury communism" to try and win support for reform. I'm sure it works for young people, but are you open enough to realize how that might be framing this as a "personal issue?"

Eliminating the stretch IRA, which is BS. No one talks about that wealth transfer.

Absolute BS.

Where is that in this series or "parts"?

"Wealth transfer from young to old". This is a joke.

Tom Fox said:

---

How much more than the $250k + FICA that I pay annually do I need to kick in?

I get the feeling that I am already doing my part.

---

We get it.

BusterAg said:

---

5Amp said:

---

I think most on here agree that retired people over 70 yrs old shouldn't pay property or school tax, they have already paid our a fair share over decades and no longer have kids in school.

---

I completely agree with this.

Those taxes should accrue, interest free, on the property until it is transferred to those that inherit it.

At least I'm consistent.

---

And we should tax the people that actually have children attending our public school system double what they are paying now during the gap. And those that are rich enough to send their kids to private schools and avoid public schools altogether should have to pay an additional "penalty tax" over and above for making the conscientious civic virtue less decision to not have their children attend said public schools.

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

How much more than the $250k + FICA that I pay annually do I need to kick in?

I get the feeling that I am already doing my part.

---

But you're not doing more than you have to ......therein lies the complete lack of civic duty and civic virtue

I've got that same feeling though ....that I am doing and have done my part and am currently living and receiving the rewards of my efforts , so then we're really not that much different are we? Right?

---

Well I'm not collecting an entitlement so I wouldn't say we are the same. I'll get nothing for the overwhelming majority of what I pay in while most are paying very little in comparison.

We have hashed this out multiple times now. I do not believe the government should be in the business of handing out money for simply being a taxpayer to cover someone's individual family expenses even to prevent poverty. It is outside the core function of our government and is bankrupting us.

You can agree or disagree but that is my position.

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I still think that part of the solution is to tax the crap out of the Boomers on their way out the door, since they were such a significant contributor to the problem, and the Gen Zers and Gen Xers haven't done anything to earn that "wealth" that the Boomers created anyways. They helped create this massive tax bill. They should help pay for it, the spoiled, self-interested brats.

---

As Tony Franklin posted above, all the lazy finger-pointing and generational whining is going to make cashing that check even more enjoyable. L O L.

---

Until orange juice costs you $85 a gallon and you are stuck with a fixed income, am I right?

---

I don't drink orange juice so it won't affect me........but you sir will be fornicated.........

Zobel said:

---

I'm aligned with you on nearly everything but this. Property taxes are one of the best forms of taxes, because they encourage efficient use of finite resources by imposing a carrying cost on ownership. Prevents asset hoarding without productive use, which is good for society.

High property taxes signal to a homeowner maybe you don't really need or want to live in the large home in the neighborhood with the best schools, etc.

Cutting property taxes just squeezes people entering the home buying market right now even harder… for what benefit? To tilt the scales in favor of a gerontocracy even harder?

---

Gerontocracy? Dayum, Chat GPT was on the ball yesterday....

Zobel said:

---

"lol it's going to be funny if you turn out to be a selfish ahole like me"

Sick burn

---

You're gonna cash that check and bank it, Pard.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

You're stealing from Chat w/o giving it credit.......how noble is that?

EclipseAg said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm really not sure why framing this becomes a personal issue.

---

Because you and others make it that way. You use the "boomer" term like a cudgel because it gets a response. And you are quick to blame people who don't want to lose their SS as greedy or perhaps worse, unpatriotic.

ETA: You -- and the guy who wrote the original article -- use the term "Total boomer luxury communism" to try and win support for reform. I'm sure it works for young people, but are you open enough to realize how that might be framing this as a "personal issue?"

---

Dunno man, it seems to me if it riles you up then it's because it hits close to the mark. If it doesn't apply to you, why are you protesting so much? I don't get ruffled by people whining about lazy millennials.

"Boomer" is the name of your generation, and "total boomer luxury communism" is the name of the article. The author used that term because on a per capita basis we spend 3-6 times as much on entitlements as…China. Is it provocative? Yeah. It should be.

People who don't want to lose their SS aren't greedy or unpatriotic. People who are willing to cash their check without any concern for the future of the country are greedy and unpatriotic.

BusterAg said:

---

5Amp said:

---

I think most on here agree that retired people over 70 yrs old shouldn't pay property or school tax, they have already paid our a fair share over decades and no longer have kids in school.

---

I completely agree with this.

Those taxes should accrue, interest free, on the property until it is transferred to those that inherit it.

At least I'm consistent.

---

Other than the interest free part, do you realize we already have that in Texas at 65?

lol because I used a word you had to look up?