Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman says "The Geezers Are All Right" (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Many of the boomers I discuss this with online (0+ / 0-)

    are really defensive and really jump to conclusions.  They make a catastrophic leap of logic and state that it's all about me, me, me and that I'm willing to screw the boomers to benefit me and my kids.  It's such an Orwellian world to be accused of such things but socialogically it's not so surprising given the stereotypical boomer outlook which seems to truly be "me, me, me".  

    So once again here are some basic facts.  The earliest boomers paid FICA taxes as low as 3.9%.  Gen X/Y have always been at 6.2%.  The projections are that we have enough to pay 100 percent of promised benefits to most boomers but we have only enough to pay for about 75 percent of promised benefits for Gen X/Y.   I have stated that I think that this is unfair.  I would like to think that if I was a boomer that I would also think that this was unfair.

    Another fact is that the Presidency has been in the hands of boomers for over 20 years and, it is likely, that Congress has been in the hands of the boomers for roughly the same amount of time.  And they have done nothing to address the issue.  So when a boomer tells me that I want to screw over the boomers it really astounds me.

    The fact is that I realize that boomers are ill equiped to make major changes since they have either already retired or they are getting relatively close to retirement.  But please don't tell me that just because I want the boomers to take their thumb off of the scale that tips the system to their favor that I want to screw them over.  I want to have a dialogue about the best way to equitably change the system that is fair to all generations.

    I would think it would be quite the progressive position to ask the generation that has been in power not to tilt the system to the benefit of their own generation and directly at the expense of their kids and grandkids.

    I know boomers take this as an accusation but, as I've said ad naseum, I'm merely saying that, hey, look at the system as it is.  Let's examine our values and deal with this as best we can.  If each generation contributes a little the pain won't be that bad over all.  And, yes, I realize that the younger people will have to bear more of the pain because they are better equipped than today's seniors or the boomers to contribute.  For whatever reason, for the last 20 years, this has little to no appeal for the boomer generation and they have, year after year, chosen to push the costs of these systems that they knew were in trouble unto their kids and grandkids.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 04:49:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  the boomers have just started (0+ / 0-)

      to collect benefits, so what they paid, paid for someone else.   And they may or may not get back what they paid.  The most likely demographic to keep collecting are older women and rich white males.  The males paid in at the top, the women, as a group, frequently near the bottom, many take widow's benefits as they are higher.   So those two groups may well live to draw more than they paid in.  Many minorities won't.  So the system has lots of issues.

      What you complain about it s the rising cost of living, the effects of inflation and the projected decrease in the number of workers per retired person created both by the larger cohort of the boomers and rapidly escalating survival rates.  But survival rates are actually going backwards for some groups right now, so those projections are not reliable.

      People can't undo the past.   So what you are saying is that some 85 year old woman collecting her $600 a month now deserves less because she or her husband paid less.  And an early boomer should be delayed more than the few months past 65 he or she is already waiting because younger people will pay 2% -3% more in taxes for longer than the boomers did. They've paid less income taxes for longer than the boomers did too, but  are  you proposing to shove rates back up on the lower tiers  to make up for that gereat inequity in tax rates? Oh, wait, no you think these must be handled discretely, the changes in one tax have nothing to do with the changes in the other or the problems created for the population?  Most people have preferred to pay more tax towards SS and Medicare because they want the systems to survive.

      Or are you really saying you want the system to go away?  That there should be no public old age retirement and medical systems?  If so, just out yourself as a right wing provocateur and we can talk about what is really wrong with your philosophy.  Because you seem to be missing the very meat of this argument.  Congress won't deal on the simple edges of the problems, because they are paid not to.  It isn't boomers, it is really a few rich old fuckers who are trying to undo all social services because they do want to own it all.  And some of these are actually greatest generation ages now, not boomers.  And they've been trying to undo the system since it was started.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site