That’s not how Social Security works. The money the Boomers paid into the system went to paying benefits for the previous generations. The benefits the Boomers (at least the ones that have retired) are getting now is being paid by the workers in the younger generations. While it’s true the program has run a surplus, if the young taxpayers stopped paying into the system that surplus wouldn’t last very long.
Comment on We can play that game too
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Current boomers have paid for 100% of their Social Security pension from payroll deductions from their working years. Social Security pensions are not dependent on young taxpayers.
toddestan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The money the Boomers paid into the system went to paying benefits for the previous generations.
False. The pension is fully vested by the workers receiving the pension, based on the taxes that they contributed. In fact, many elderly would be better off if the amount they contributed were invested in a hedge fund instead of Social Security.
toddestan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s exactly how it works, well other than me having the dates off as the Boomers weren’t even born when Social Security was enacted by FDR. When Social Security was enacted, retirees started receiving benefits even if they never paid into the system, which was paid for by the current workers who were paying into the system. It’s been like that ever since. Social Security is also not a pension.
You are correct that for most people would be better off investing their Social Security taxes into a hedge fund but workers don’t really have a choice in the matter.
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
retirees started receiving benefits even if they never paid into the system, which was paid for by the current workers who were paying into the system.
The vast majority of current boomers have fully paid for their own Social Security pension.
Social Security is also not a pension.
That’s a distinction without a difference.
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
*specifically boomers between years 1946 and 1964, which have actually paid more than they’ll get in benefits.
The others are still taking more than they contributed. It’s fair to say that some current boomers have paid for their Social Security, but many others have not, and the situation isn’t getting any better.
To put it simply, there are just fewer workers paying in to the system than there are people taking money out, and that number only grows as people get older.
imageThis means only about 80% of existing benefit rates are expected to be paid to people when they retire later, and many of those benefiting from existing rates are already taking more from current generations than they paid in.
I don’t think we should universally hate boomers just because the economic situation they were in happened to favor them in some ways, after all, I want my grandma to keep being able to afford her retirement care right now before she dies, but it’s also just not true to say that all current boomers have paid for their social security in its entirety.
Only some of them have, and with the way things are going, it’s not looking like we’ll be any better as we grow older, as rates will have to decline just to prevent draining the entire fund, while people continue to pay the same % of their income into the system.
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
boomers between years 1946 and 1964, which have actually paid more than they’ll get in benefits.
So boomers 79 and younger are fully paying their own way. According to Google, the average US longevity is 78.4 years. I don’t see an unfairness problem. Google also states that only about 4-5% of the U.S. population is 80 and older. You also assume those over 80 have paid nothing toward their pension.
I don’t think we should universally hate boomers just because the economic situation they were in happened to favor them in some ways
Again, most boomers pay their own way. And many seniors are living below the poverty line. And speaking of being favored, male boomers were required to risk their lives for their country. Current US males can take that risk optionally. Do you have any idea of how many young men had their lives cut short during WW2 and Vietnam?
there are just fewer workers paying in to the system than there are people taking money out, and that number only grows as people get older
Obviously false. Most seniors have already fully paid for their pension. If everybody is paying their own way, what difference does it make whether there are fewer workers? You falsely assume that current workers are paying for current seniors.
it’s not looking like we’ll be any better as we grow older
Whatever happens to you, it won’t be because of the boomers who are paying their own way.
juliebean@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
1946 to 1964 is exactly the range of birth years traditionally assigned to ‘baby boomers’. anyone older or younger isn’t a boomer at all.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Now that’s misinformation. They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.
That’s why many senior citizens live below the poverty line.
Soulg@ani.social 3 weeks ago
Okay, we’re still paying money into social security that we will never receive, so the anger won’t just go away
ronl2k@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You don’t know that you won’t receive Social Security. That’s just pointless scaremongering. In any case, vote for legislators who will manage Social Security better instead of blaming everything on boomers.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There will never be another general election in the United States.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You can hold onto all the hope you want, but some of us can do basic math and situational reasoning.