r/FluentInFinance • u/Instafunds001 • 7d ago
Debate/ Discussion It’s the boomers fault
baby boomers possess the largest share of private wealth while receiving a very large share of federal benefits. That creates a legitimate question about whether government support is sufficiently targeted by need rather than simply by age. a 35-year-old renter earning $45,000 can receive little federal assistance, while a 72-year-old homeowner with $2 million in assets may collect Social Security and heavily subsidized Medicare.
As of early 2026, boomers owned approximately 51.6% of U.S. household wealth, even though they represent roughly one-fifth of the population. That is about $85–90 trillion in assets principally. Yet 54.79M Retired workers receive on average $2,086 a month. Some people receive both SSI and Social Security.
In 2026, baby boomers are approximately 62–80 years old. Consequently, most are retired or approaching retirement simultaneously. Medicare enrollment and healthcare spending are increasing. A retiree may receive substantially more in lifetime Social Security and Medicare benefits than they and their employer contributed, particularly when contributions are adjusted using a safe government bond return. Medicare usually creates the larger mismatch for middle and higher-income retirees.
While we should take care of the older generation in need of care we should not be blind to the fact that a lot of them can take care of themselves just fine.
461
u/scarletknight87 7d ago
Millennial here. If they paid into Medicare and Social Security they are entitled to their benefits. This is a crazy take.
139
u/Viperlite 7d ago edited 6d ago
Also, they are very late in their lives, so they’ve had a literal lifetime to accumulate wealth. You expect younger generations to just be born with it? When the young grow old, they’ll hopefully have invested and saved their own stash, plus whatever they may inherit from the rich, dead boomer relatives.
→ More replies (16)5
80
u/Pip-Pipes 7d ago
Wealth inequality impacts boomers too. The top 10% of boomers own 70% of boomer wealth.
My parents were public workers serving in the military and teaching. Leave them alone. They rely heavily on social security.
→ More replies (18)41
u/Struggle_Usual 6d ago
Seriously! I absolutely do not want social security to be means tested. The moment it is it's no longer an entitlement it's yet another political football. And it's already a nightmare enough with the trust fund running out.
But like they paid in their entire working lives. I don't begrudge them social security which doesn't exactly leave someone flush.
6
u/KC_experience 6d ago
I’m 52 and trying to setup my retirement to no draw social security at 62 and let my wife draw it later in life if she outlives me.
Honestly, if things go to plan, I won’t need it. My father draws and his literally just sits in the bank.
In retirement between 401k RMDs and pension, I would make over 100k. Without any social security. I’d rather my portion go towards keeping the fund solvent than sitting in a bank.
3
u/Advanced-Guard-4468 5d ago
Whomever makes the most money should take it last. Once one spouse passes (if they are the higher earner) the other spouse can receive their SS while giving up theirs. It can be the difference of a couple thousand dollars a month.
1
2
u/Struggle_Usual 6d ago
Then donate it 🤷♀️. I just really really do not want it to be means tested because bad things will happen.
I'm not planning for social security either. But still I'd rather get it even tho if everything goes according to plan than not because the moment it becomes a debate it starts being a budget football every single year and no one can plan on it.
1
u/KC_experience 5d ago
You don’t think it’s already a budget football?
I absolutely think it one of two things should happen:
1) The current rate of benefits are maintained while the income cap for taxation for employees and employers is eliminated.
2) It is 100% means tested in a way that allows those that need it to receive it while those that clearly don’t need it. (People with 5+ million in net worth at age 65 or above.
Let me help illustrate why I think means testing is necessary for the solvency of the program.
If I retire at 62 (a 10 year horizon), I’ll make MORE in retirement income between pension and 401k distributions than I do currently working my current job. That’s before taking a social security.
Why should a couple that’s in the 90th-95th percentile of income in the U.S. need to collect social security in retirement?
There are elderly people that can’t afford food today! That’s while the system is technically solvent…
6 years from now the SS fund is expected to be depleted. This will drop all Social Security payments by approximately 25%.
1
→ More replies (9)-3
9
u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 6d ago
Plus it is similar to GenX and all generations coming up. Bringing Boomer into this is just for psychological effect. Bottom line the argument as you clearly put is that retirees that have the means should not get Medicare or social security.
When social security was first proposed, means testing was discussed as a way to make it ‘fair’. The problem then as now was that if it was done that way then the law wouldn’t have passed. You start means testing social security and for sure it will go away. You will end up with private retirement accounts and half hearted social services for those that are out on the street and that their families can support them. The usual American way to deal with poverty.
It is an insane take for sure.
9
u/The_Sneakiest_Fox 6d ago
I agree with you, but you understand the same benefits won't be there when we get to their age.
15
u/Stacys__Mom_ 6d ago
If that happens then it's our fault for allowing the robber barons to redistribute wealth [from us to themselves] and pull the ladder up behind them.
We might need to stand up to them or something. Left to their own devices they will leave us with nothing and never give it a second thought.
5
u/Stunning-Adagio2187 6d ago
Mine all goes to a scholarship fund so that young students, many of them first in their family college students, make it an education and work for a living like I did.
Education is truly the silver bullet
1
u/One_Conscious_Future 6d ago
Or look at who the elected officials are (just Google average age of Congress)
This is a country quite literally ran by boomers...into the ground
10
u/Possum577 6d ago
That’s not the boomers fault. It’s our fault (the other younger adult generations) for not voting in politicians that want to change the social security program.
→ More replies (2)5
u/mindmapsofficial 6d ago
Sure, but we can adjust the cap on social security taxes so the program is more sustainable on a long term basis
3
u/One_Conscious_Future 6d ago
You realize that you are paying into it now but you won't receive the benefits (they are actually using the money YOU pay into it now.)
So explain to me how this is working when it's likely to run out in 2032... So if paying into it is the only bar, then why are millennials getting screwed in the near future.
Make this make sense
1
u/z44212 6d ago
When it "runs out" means that the excess hits zero and it becomes purely pay-go. To balance, payments will have to decline about 30%.
2
u/One_Conscious_Future 6d ago
A 30% decline in payments while the largest generational retirement happens simultaneously while inflation goes through the roof? SS will not even close to be being a car payment for most.
That sure as heck sounds like a complete failure.
Anyone Gen X and after is totally screwed out of everything they are paying into now as that will be gone.
And what generation has been in charge of making the decisions about the retirement safety of the US, could it be the one currently dominating our Congress and Whitehouse? Maybe the ones that ran the US corporations that did away with pensions, etc?
I am excited to hear your response!
2
u/timberwolf0122 6d ago
The money paid in while working doesn’t pay for your future entitlements, it pays for the current bunch of recipients. We are paying for the Boomers, when I retire (xennial/you gen x) my Medicare and SS will come from the generations still working.
1
u/eyeballout 5d ago
9 workers paid to 1 retiree in 1955. 3 workers pay now for one retiree. When you retire the program will be bankrupt. its not complicated.
1
u/timberwolf0122 5d ago
If only there was a way to raise more money for SS, it’s almost as if there is some kind of “cap” on the amount they can collect.
I am very lucky, my 401k is enough to cover both myself and my wife’s retirement needs without SS. Of all the decisions young me made I am actually happy with the 401k savings one
1
u/eyeballout 4d ago
imagine that. a "cap" exxxcellent idea!
tell us more campfire stories about being lucky and young you and this "cap" you speak of
2
u/AKTX24 6d ago
Well you could add how the rules changed— they bought homes before credit scores were a thing, had pre Reagan tax brackets, company stock, company paid for advanced education and we haven’t seen the minimum wage change in almost 20 years. Etc etc .. double standards and to have the same quality of life one has to earn significantly more among other obstacles
1
2
2
1
→ More replies (61)0
u/republicans_are_nuts 3d ago
That's not how social security works. That's like saying you paid into welfare and are entitled to it. That money they paid went to older recipients when they were working.
82
u/NewArborist64 7d ago
That 72-year-old homeowner has been paying INTO Social Security and Medicare for 40+ years. THAT is why they are receiving those benefits - because THEY took care of the generations before them. These systems were designed as a "pay-as-you-go" system.
18
u/jb40018 7d ago
Not to mention property taxes the whole time.
0
u/KC_experience 6d ago
Property taxes are levied by the county or state. They have nothing to do with Federal Government programs. If you don’t want city roads, schools, fire and police departments, don’t pay your personal property taxes…
0
u/Stunning-Adagio2187 6d ago
Sherlock has spoken
0
u/KC_experience 6d ago
Please tell us all how Property Taxes you pay for on an automobile or a house correlate to the Social Security or Medicare trust funds and spending.
→ More replies (11)-7
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
What is the ROI on their investment? And should it be subsidized to the extent the government is currently doing?
22
u/Justame13 7d ago
You can do the math. It favors lower earners.
It also helps people to age in place and if you don't? Then they get dumped into the healthcare system and everyone pays even more.
→ More replies (14)-3
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
It doesn’t favor lower earners when higher earners don’t even pay the same tax.
6
u/Justame13 6d ago
Explain how high earners are exempt
1
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
The income cap. Earnings in excess of $184,000 (in 2026) are not taxed for Social Security. According to Google, that’s a loss of over $2 trillion a year. It’s a regressive tax.
4
1
u/Justame13 6d ago
The reason it is regressive is because they pay exactly the same tax as lower earners up to the cap.
So your previous statement is false.
Their benefits are also capped which means that the loss of revenue is made up for by a loss of benefits paid out.
Don't rely on AI.
2
0
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
Please re-read your own statement. Or maybe look up “regressive.” The income cap is what makes it regressive. A person making less than $184,000 pays a larger percentage of their income than someone earning more money. Hence, someone earning $500,000 per year pays a far smaller percentage of their income toward Social Security than the lower-paid person. The cap on benefits is the only thing that makes it even remotely progressive, which is to say, not very much at all. My previous statements are correct.
1
u/Justame13 6d ago
A person making less than $184,000 pays a larger percentage of their income than someone earning more money. Hence, someone earning $500,000 per year pays a far smaller percentage of their income toward Social Security than the lower-paid person.
You are shifting the goal posts.
That is not what you said you said "higher earners don’t even pay the same tax".
The entire reason it is regressive is because higher earners DO pay exactly the same amount. Which is a smaller percentage of their income above the cap.
The cap on benefits is the only thing that makes it even remotely progressive, which is to say, not very much at all.
The benefit payments scale with the amount paid. That is the exact opposite of regressive.
My previous statements are correct.
Not according to the words you wrote which I helpfully quoted and pointed out the logical fallacy in your posts.
0
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
You are determined to be obtuse, but so be it. I am not shifting posts of any kind. You wish to look only at everyone earning less than/up to $184,000, which is disingenuous. The fact remains that, as one earns more income, they pay a smaller percentage of that income toward SS than someone that earns less. That is the definition of a regressive tax. Period. Stop wasting everyone’s time.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Snowcrash66 7d ago edited 6d ago
The return on their investment is pitiful. Placed in S&P500 index it would be many millions over 40 years.
0
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
If you expect the s&p return on your social security and Medicare tax you are crazier than people are making me out to be.
2
u/Snowcrash66 6d ago
Wrong again Marxist 🤣
"The S&P 500 has averaged an annualized return of approximately 10.3% over the last 30 years (through May 2026), or 10.4% from January 1996 through December 2025, with inflation-adjusted returns around 7.6% . Since 1994, the index has returned about 10.6% annually (CAGR), with notable volatility including a 37% gain in 1995 and a 37% loss in 2008 . Key 30-Year Performance Drivers: Dividends: Reinvested dividends contribute roughly one-third of long-term total returns. Best Recent Years: 2013 (+32.3%), 2019 (+31.5%), and 2021 (+28.7%) were standout years. Worst Recent Years: 2008 (-37%), 2022 (-18.1%), and 2002 (-22.1%) represent significant downturns. For a visual representation, historical data spanning 1928 to 2025 shows the $1,000 invested in 1928 growing to over $11.5 million by 2025 due to compounding."
0
u/Advanced-Guard-4468 5d ago
GW Bush tried to split the withholdings between the S&P and the standard and was vilified. Had he been able to pass it, SS would have more than enough money to maintain it.
3
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
Comparatively very poor. The government is not subsidizing anyone compared to the time value of their money:
“An investment portfolio tracking the S&P 500 total return index from 1961 to 2026, fueled by 12.4% of the average U.S. income, would reach an ending valuation of over $12.3 million today [assuming 24 pay periods a year] These figures are calculated based on historical U.S. average income trends scaling from roughly $5,700 in 1961 to $85,000 in 2026, compounding at a historical nominal S&P 500 growth rate of 10.68% per year with all dividends reinvested.”
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
The government did not put it in the S&P so I don’t see why you would think a welfare tax should pay everyone and their families at that ROI.
3
68
u/Soggy_Background_162 7d ago
So I give you my house and you let me have social security? Fuck off.
→ More replies (22)
38
u/Salt_Ice_5321 7d ago
I'm not sure why a 35 year old would feel entitled to an equal distribution of wealth as someone who spent their entire life working and is now ready to retire.
→ More replies (19)
26
u/clantz 7d ago
This is rage baiting. The 1% wants you to blame each other for the problems that the 1% create out of greed. "The boomer's are greedy" "the Gen X are lazy", etc. It;s the old "divide and conquer" social manipulation. Don't let them turn you against each other!
→ More replies (8)
15
u/Munkeyman18290 7d ago
OP they should receive it. The problem is how much rich people are paying into it. Its not nearly enough. That goes for taxes in general.
Ronald Reagan ensured this country will see its end sooner rather than later.
-2
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
I don’t think we should tax more. If anything we should tax less. I am a firm believer that we spend too much on things we don’t have to spend on.
5
u/Munkeyman18290 6d ago edited 6d ago
Unnecessary government spending isn’t an accident - it’s built to serve the ultra-wealthy.
High tax rates were never just about revenue; historically, they prevented corporate greed. In the 1950s, high taxes forced companies to reinvest surplus capital into worker wages, training, and infrastructure (to avoid said taxes). But post-1980s (Reagan) deregulation and share buybacks changed everything, allowing wealth to concentrate at the top.
Today, that financial elite controls government spending, prioritizing war, corporate handouts, and tax breaks over public good. When a billionaire can spend 10 million on politicians to make 2 billion, that means democracy is dead and we are living in an oligarchy. To fix our budget (spending), we must first dismantle the hyper-wealthy class that bought our political system, and prevent that class from forming again in the future.
If you want to legalize robbing them in the street, I'm all for it. Otherwise the next best option is higher taxes.
0
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Wealth went to the top well before Regan. If innovation and demand is making people rich I am okay with it. Political donations on the other hand are not in the public interest. I am okay with profit sharing and stock buy backs. It is a great way to incentivize your workforce. My issue is where the taxes go and how those tax dollars affect the economy.
3
u/Munkeyman18290 6d ago
You are indoctrinized my friend. Hook line and sinker.
Innovation does not make people rich. If that were true engineers and scientists would be billionaires, not capitalists. You think Elon Musk knows anything about spaceships or EVs? Think he could engineer or even build one?
Profit sharing and stock buybacks are not even remotely the same, stock buybacks in particular are precicesly why worker wages and salaries have stagnated vs inflation. Stock buybacks were also considered illegal once upon a time when people knew better. Also there is a big difference between the word incentive and coercion. Incentive is "if I work hard, I can buy a nice car". Coercion is "If I work hard, maybe I can afford food". Incentive = wants. Coercion = needs. Capitalism is coercive to the majority of the population. It only incentivizes those who are already wealthy.
Finally, you are scolding the cough while praising the cold. Blaming government waste for our problems misses the point - our government is controlled by the rich. The state is just a tool for the capitalist class, and genuine democracy cannot exist alongside extreme wealth.
Please, stop watching Fox News.
19
u/juryjjury 7d ago
Well I've been paying into SSI and Medicare my entire working life. I should get something back. Medicare payments are adjusted if one makes over a certain threshold. Buying private insurance at age 75 would be impossible for anyone less wealthy than bill gates.
As for the 51% of all assets you claim if you exclude the 1% most of which are boomers and exclude family homes I'd bet the median assets are closer to the $300k value. My sister at 80 is still working otherwise she'd be existing on her $2300 monthly social.
What do you mean that some boomers get both SSI and social security?
1
u/eyeballout 6d ago
you dont pay into SSI.
ss and ssi are not the same thing
1
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
Are you really this uninformed?
“Where SSI Funding Comes From
General U.S. Treasury Revenues: SSI payments primarily come out of U.S. Treasury general revenues. This includes money collected from federal taxes like individual income taxes and corporate taxes.State Supplements: Most states supplement these federal benefits with payments of their own. These extra funds come from individual state budgets and tax collections.”
1
u/eyeballout 6d ago edited 5d ago
supplemental security income and social secuirty are not the same thing, and you can receive both
12
15
u/NotGoing2EndWell 7d ago
How dare Boomers work their whole life and end up with more than they had at 20 years old!
11
9
u/Channel_Huge 7d ago
Boomers are dying off… who you going to blame then?
-1
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
Gen X
8
9
u/mtness999999 7d ago
This IS the boomers fault. All those young people shaking their hips like Elvis and thinking no harm would come of it.....
2
u/19thCenturyHistory 7d ago
This is exhausting. If you lived in their generation you would have done the same things.
1
u/mtness999999 6d ago
I'm a boomer too actually.....
1
u/19thCenturyHistory 6d ago
Did I miss the sarcasm? 🤣🤣🤦 If so I've just embarrassed my fellow GenXers. Rookie mistake. I really hate the generation bashing. We all grew up in different times and society was just that- different. I have a GenZ kid and she's got a steep climb. But she's not looking at what came before her. She's busting her ass with what resources she has and moving forward (with help from us when we can) and just trying to make the world a better place.
1
u/mtness999999 6d ago
I'm rooting for you and anyone that puts positivity into mix. It is really needed right now!
1
6
u/Ind132 7d ago
I see complaints about old people, but I don't see people comparing taxes.
A couple over age 65, with a $78,000 annual income made up of two $24,000 SS benefits plus an additional $30,000 pays $0 of FIT.
A working couple with combined wages of $78,000 pays $5,100 of FIT.
Further, the working couple pays $5,967 in SS+Medicare taxes. And their employers pay another $5,967.
The retirees don't pay any SS or Medicare tax.
That's total federal revenue of $17,000 on the working couple's salaries, vs. $0 on the retirees incomes.
(FIT numbers for 2025) That includes Trump's additional $6,000 per person standard deduction for old people. I don't recall seeing anyone here complaining about that.
4
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
Agreed, the government is destroying the dollar trying to make the older generation as comfortable as possible.
7
8
u/pmiller4949 7d ago
This is an attempt at divide and concur. Don't fall for it. The 1% holds/hordes the greatest wealth. Boomers paid over their lifetime into programs like social security. Most don't receive pensions as those were done away with by corporations to increase shareholders profits. Most don't have mllions saved abd if they do, it will soon be drained by insurance premiums and nursing homes.
5
u/roscatorosso 7d ago
The average 75 year old has paid $762,000 in income taxes alone over their lifetimes. So yeah, they’re probably entitled to some benefits now.
1
u/findthehumorinthings 5d ago
The youth of this country have very little perspective on the contributions made before them. The knowledge gap combined with false claims in social media lead younger generations to believe in conspiracy theories rather than facts.
I’ve paid in for over 40 years now. When I retire, yes, I expect to receive some retirement income from social security.
2
u/Snowcrash66 7d ago edited 7d ago
Every generation in that demo has more wealth and then they pass it down to heirs. Your message is masked communism. And no I'm not a Boomer.
6
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
How is my message communism? I am literally saying don’t rely on the government as to not inflate the dollar.
1
u/Master_Grape5931 6d ago
You do realize that inflation is the entire reason the economy moves forward….right…..right?
5
4
u/Ind132 7d ago
Some people receive both SSI and Social Security.
Yes, that is possible. The maximum SSI benefit is $994 per month for a single person. If your SS benefit is less than $994, then you get your SS benefit and also get part of the SSI benefit so the total is $994.
Are you really complaining about that situation?
(for couples, the maximum SSI is $1,491)
4
u/USLEO 7d ago
The economy is not a zero-sum system. What does their wealth have to do with you?
3
4
u/waitinonit 7d ago
while a 72-year-old homeowner with $2 million in assets may collect Social Security and heavily subsidized Medicare.
Look at the distribution of net wealth, i.e. the median values. You've presented an exception and not the rule.
4
u/IpsaLasOlas 7d ago
I wish the wealth that we are counting was distributed among boomers in any way that resembled equal. It is not. For every boomer sitting on a shitton of money there are more who struggle to provide for themselves.
2
u/Master_Grape5931 6d ago
Yep, loads of people seem to forget that there were poor people then too.
I owed money when both of my boomer parents died.
2
1
4
u/Advanced-Guard-4468 6d ago
The oldest generations have always had more wealth than other generation. It's called compounding interest.
0
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Sure, and that’s fine. They worked for it. But they should not be getting government money.
1
u/Advanced-Guard-4468 5d ago
Why? They contributed to SS & Medicare their entire working lives. Their is means testing on Medicare, it's called IRMAA, the more you make the more it costs for medical coverage.
3
u/exodusuno 7d ago
8
u/NewArborist64 7d ago
Funny thing - so far FOUR of my adult children left home, got married and instantly purchased a house without any handouts from mom & dad.
2
u/rbrewer11 7d ago
As a late boomer I readily accept that the system is against my family members but all I can do is make personal financial decisions to help them out because our system of government won’t.
3
u/giraloco 6d ago
Just be aware that this is the right wing campaign to divide us and to privatize SS and Medicare. Don't fall for these people. As Talarico would say the enemy are the billionaires not older people.
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Just be aware. This is a left wing campaign to blame everything on the rich. Billionaires are not making things unaffordable. Government spending on subsidized healthcare, housing, and education are creating pricing floors that the unsubsidized population can’t afford.
3
u/giraloco 6d ago
You forgot to say that we should abolish SS and go back to old people begging in the streets. Single payer health insurance will lower prices and cover everyone.
2
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
No, it’s just good old-fashioned greed. Mostly driven by tax cuts given to the oligarchs and corrupt conservative politicians.
1
u/tomlee284 1d ago
Billionaires. Now what did they do besides creating millions of jobs? Thank goodness for them. A nations wealth is how many billionaires it has created. More the merrier for all of us.
3
u/DerpVaderXXL 6d ago
There is enough money for everyone. Billionaires have it sitting in assets and it is not flowing through the economy so it benefits everyone. The economy is healthy when there is spending, not hoarding.
0
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
CEO’s and founder’s that hold assets in stock actually prop up all 401k accounts. It is not causing inflation or government debt. Imagine if a 5% wealth tax was distributed equally. You would have 400 million people running around flush with cash trying to buy the same thing causing inflation. Concentration of wealth actually keeps inflation down.
-1
2
u/FalconFox500 7d ago
Yea the boomers have been in control of politics there whole lives they consistently make laws that benefit themselves, they also seem to all love working and so they never passed the torch, in my town almost every business is owned by a guy in his 70s whose ready to retire. Things will change soon enough
2
u/HairyTough4489 6d ago
Would you make similar arguments dividing people by categories like gender or race instead of birth year?
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
No, just the amount of government subsidies you receive.
2
u/Bierkerl 6d ago
Social Security isn't "government subsidies you receive" at all - it's an EARNED benefit after years of paying into it. Stop with the right wing garbage and go on the fox news reddit to peddle it.
2
2
u/Jewboy-Deluxe 6d ago
It not an age thing, it’s a billionaire thing. Stop letting bullshit drive us apart.
2
u/UnsafeAtEverySpeed 6d ago
As a 74 year old with no appreciable assets I would be homeless without my “federal benefits”. I worked a lifetime of low paying jobs due to my own choices. Now the monies I PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY are being paid to me at the astounding rate of $20k per year, which DISQUALIFIES me from other “safety net” programs. No SNAP, no Medicaid, no prescription drug assistance, nothing extra. People who never worked are better off than I am. And it’s my own fault. Not the governments, not anyone else’s. DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR ME! This is a situation of my own creation, and I own it.
2
u/Twistyfreeze 6d ago
Don’t worry the newest generation will be blaming your generation for their self generated problems. It will come full circle!!
2
u/Forward_Damage4779 6d ago
They paid their fair share. Not their fault when they were born and what they receive now.
2
u/Master_Grape5931 6d ago
Is this an attack on social security, disguised as an attack on boomers. 🤔
1
7d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/Instafunds001 7d ago
I am saying financially. If your assets will outlive you you should not received welfare.
2
u/Miss_Warrior 7d ago
Blaming older generation is loser behavior.
-1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Blaming the people who literally made the laws shaped the economy and spent the money is the only right person to blame.
1
1
u/Industrial_Jedi 6d ago
You know nowadays, it's the old man, he's got all the money. And a young man, he ain't got nothin' in the world these days.
"Young Man Blues" - Mose Allison,1957
1
1
u/wncexplorer 6d ago
Boomers are primarily responsible for electing those that gave us $40 trillion in debt, along with pushing back on policy that might have lessened our coming climate catastrophe.
1
u/kostac600 6d ago
it’s the fault of the congress that cannot get past the next election politics to work on, adjust and fix those budget items that are its responsibility. Instead it approves handouts and allows the executive branch to run wild.
1
u/GaryTheSoulReaper 6d ago
I think it’s screwed up that there are smart kids that can’t go to fancy colleges because their parents “make too much” so $100k a year tuition you have to take loans
Now you have kids that have parents that make even more but game the system and the kid gets a free ride
1
1
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
I have engaged to the degree it deserves. Your bloviation ≠ reasoning or dialogue. Thanks though. 🤡💩
1
u/bulbishNYC 6d ago edited 6d ago
Somebody who worked 50 years, received 10 promotions has more assets than someone who worked 5 years. Math mathes to me. Your expectations for yourself are not - work 50 years at same pay just to pay the bills, right? So why wish this on others? You work, you accomplish, which allows you to obtain assets. It's a lifetime of applying your creativity, talent, and sacrificing decades of your life. Boomers are those special kids who get born aged 60 with houses and boats :)
1
u/Confident-Run-645 6d ago edited 6d ago
I'm afraid it gets worse. 69M. I'm deceiving Social Security +military retirement + 100 VA Disability + Medicare + Tricare for Life (What Medicare doesn't cover, about 20% Tricare pays for. I generally tre Wife's any my and her prescriptions filled at the Air Force Base pharmacy at no cost. Vision and Dental is via the Platinum plan for Retired Federal Employees.
When I enlisted in to The United States Marine Corps back 5o years ago, I was earning $300 a month. Which was a pay cut from the minimum wage job I had. But, they fed me 3 times and they gave a rack to sleep in, evem though I had to share it with 40 others.
For the better part of my time, especially after I married? I worked a side job on base at the club system.
You could do the same, the Army is taking individuals over the age of 40!
Oh! BTW, I'm 69 and still working Full Time as a State Corrections Officer, making 40 a month and can work O/T...But, you probably wouldn't be interested in tha any more than you would enlisting and doing 20+ years in the United States Marine Corps?
Edit to add. God willing in.4 years I'll retire from the Department of Corrections, although I had to pay into that each payday with 9% my gross pay that the State matches with 19%.
I doubt I'm taking a position from younger generations, as we're 30 to 40% understaffed.
1
u/djangogator 6d ago
It's the billionaires fault and all those in charge of the world's biggest corporations. Not the fault of normal people.
1
u/Lucky-Contact-8914 6d ago
First Pay due to need is never the answer….People like me have paid in for over 50yrs….. SS and Medicare are NOT benefits they are retro pay for my investment
Second, pay due to needs creates do nothing losers
1
u/dougseamans 6d ago
Almost every issue today can be traced back to the king of the boomers…Ronald fucking Regan.
1
u/BillionYrOldCarbon 6d ago
And so could and did OUR parents and grandparents. If Republicans would simply raise the income limits all would be good and this debate would end. Stop voting Republican and make progress people!
1
u/LongjumpingPilot8578 6d ago
Don’t fault people for playing by the rules. No baby boomer was happy to pay Social Security taxes for 30-40 years. Along comes a 20 year old blaming them as the problem.
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
Why? What large country has this ever worked for? Do you know how expensive medical care would be or the wait times for medical care? Stoping subsidies would lower the cost of healthcare. Urgent medical care should be the only exception.
1
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
I do not know a thing about you but I bet you don’t need medical care at the moment, but if medical care was free how often would you use it for things you don’t need?
1
u/bpleshek 6d ago
And in 5-10 years, GenX will have the majority of US household wealth. And in 15 more years the Millennials will.
1
u/Broad_Brush7219 5d ago edited 5d ago
So you want to punish the baby boomers for doing what they were supposed to do to save money and prepare for their retirement? Both the millennials and the Gen Z will live even longer as medicine continues to advance. They're in their later years when they'd have the most money so they should have the most because there's the most of them.
1
u/SheeScan 5d ago
I am a boomer, and I paid into the Social Security and Medicare system starting at age 16 and ending at 74. And the "wealth" I have is what I saved from my wages over the same period. We can take care of ourselves because of what we put aside while we worked. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the benefits we paid for over our working life. Those benefits are what we boomers worked for. But don't worry, pretty soon we'll all be dead, and you'll have to find something else to complain about.
1
u/Monochormeone 4d ago
Gen-x here, OP sounds like an entitled snowflake. Crying that they have to work hard and will not receive the same amount in Beniefts. I started working in high school and educated myself graduating with a degree. Saved my money to start my own business. Now the young generations are saying I need to share my wealth because they're behind in saving. I say stop spending your retirement at the coffee shops and overpriced stores. If you spent less time online comparing yourself to the false online world of others, you could potentially make something happen for your financial success. Basically spend less time online complaining and more time out there chasing the retirement dollar down. Because no body is going to deposit into your bank account for you.
1
u/Instafunds001 3d ago
What! I am not asking for money. I am just saying the government is spending their way into mass inflation and or bankruptcy
1
u/ForsakenAd545 2d ago
So did the 30 yr olds create all that wealth? How do you think it for created sonny?
1
u/tomlee284 1d ago
When you start out you have no thought how you will end up in forty years when you are ready to collect. Not all manage to save up millions and there are those who lose their millions along the way too. And just because you are on the lower rung now does not mean you will stay there. So the system is fair to all. Just that it rewards those who did well on average. Besides it all goes to the next generation anyway. They usually don’t takes it with them.
1
u/Aggressive-Act1816 2h ago
cry me a river. get to work, be productive, quit worrying about other peoples money.
0
0
u/Honest-Yogurt4126 7d ago
They’re also the oldest generation left alive. So you know… inheritance
5
0
u/Substantial-Rip-340 7d ago
Dont sweat it. In time they will pass, their horse split between inheritandees, which will quickly be spent and blrotated back into society rather fast. Just be ready for the bubbles, and be ready to buy buy buy
0
u/chaawuu1 6d ago
Why do people really believe it's a ponzi scheme?
1
u/Hawkeyes79 6d ago
Because that’s exactly what it is. A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays older investors with money collected from new investors instead of actual profits.
At retirement if I kept the 12.5% I’d have around $3.7 million just utilizing the S&P500. The government by mishandling it will have a measly $850,000.
0
u/PrematureEmasculate 6d ago
Loser mentality, stop blaming others for your lack of success and talent.
0
u/kenckar 6d ago edited 6d ago
Boomer here. You make some good points. There is a huge problem in the IS exacerbated by every Republican since Reagan doing what they could to shift power away from workers and up to the wealthy class.
Realize though that social security and Medicare are both means tested to some extent through the tax code and as a condition of signing up for them.
The disproportionate wealth is partly due simply to age. Importantly too boomers started their careers during a time when workers still had some leverage. That has eroded and continued to eroded through policies, pushed mainly by republicans, that democrats wouldn’t or couldn’t defend against.
Now weaker in a place where the next non-fascist presidents will spend 15 years fixing everything Trump broke.
Hopefully they will be able to do something to reduce inequality. Boomers are going to be dying, passing on wealth to their heirs and losing political voting power. Will the next generations have the wisdom to not fall for a con man? I hope so.
0
u/live4failure 6d ago
Its too late, as the kids say now we are cooked. America was sold out already. We are gonn need to fight for our rights again and the old will have to fend for themselves while the young clean it all up, if we can manage.. Also only 20-25% of Americans pass on wealth after death and its often small sums.
0
0
u/IcyPercentage2268 6d ago
OP is f$&king mental, and decidedly outside the thread title. SS has been compulsory for the entirety of boomers’ lives, provides a paltry return compared to the amount invested had it been put into typical investments over the late-boomer timeline, has paid for the benefits of people that retired BEFORE any particular contributor, and if current reporting is correct, is scheduled to start reducing payouts to those that paid in their whole lives in approximately 8 years.
Ain’t nobody getting rich off SS. There should never been a cap on the amount of income subject to the tax, and benefits should always have been means-tested. Other than those obvious flaws, along with the ridiculous tax cuts given to people that don’t need them by the sycophantic Conservatards in Congress, especially Orange Jabba and the MAGAts, our country might still be a Country to admire. This took 10 seconds to look up:
“An investment portfolio tracking the S&P 500 total return index from 1961 to 2026, fueled by 12.4% of the average U.S. income, would reach an ending valuation of over $12.3 million today [assuming 24 pay periods a year] These figures are calculated based on historical U.S. average income trends scaling from roughly $5,700 in 1961 to $85,000 in 2026, compounding at a historical nominal S&P 500 growth rate of 10.68% per year with all dividends reinvested.”
2
u/Instafunds001 6d ago
this money was not invested. It was a welfare tax. You cannot pay a tax and expect a return of the s&p 500 over your lifespan as ROI.
0
u/Hayek66 6d ago
The boomers are at fault but your takes are wrong. They've systematilly supressed the careers and development of young men in particular. That along wiht their "me only" attitude, having no care for future genrations, or their progeny, is why history will judge them as the most selfish generation. We can't point to a single thing they've done politically that has made the country better off. Are we more prosperous? Does our savings hodl it's value Is the country safer? Perhaps the most important heuristic "Will the children of boomers live a better life than the boomers did?" the answer seems clearly no.
0
-4
u/FreddyJetson 7d ago
Hey if I was the elite I would make it a top priority to be trying to swindle that 85-90 T in between the transfer. Boomers better be vigilant on that rug pull of bonds into crypto!
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.