• ronl2k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days 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. It hurts to see Lemmy becoming a source of youngster misinformation like Reddit. Lemmy needs to delete this miseducational and divisive thread.

    • Soulg@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        we’re still paying money into social security that we will never receive

        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.

    • toddestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • ronl2k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day 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.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              The OP specifically depicts someone that’s 90 years old.

              Doesn’t that mean the amount they paid in to Social Security might have actually run out years ago?

              • ronl2k@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Social Security was designed to have winners and losers in the contributions game. My mom died at 64, and my dad died at 59. They both contributed to Social Security during their entire working lives without collecting a cent from it. That’s the way it goes.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Okay, but that necessarily means that other people are now paying for their Social Security. This person, specifically, did not fully pay for their own Social Security. They’re living off of public money, not money they contributed themselves.

    • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days 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. image

      This 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Now that’s misinformation. They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.

      • ronl2k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.

        That’s why many senior citizens live below the poverty line.