10,000 Baby Boomers Retire Each Day for the next 10 years!

[amicus]

Baby Boomers are defined as being born during the period of time following World War Two and 1957; some 76 million babies were born during that period.

With government entitlement programs already under stress, Social Security and Medicare; what does the future hold for those on the verge of retirement?

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35.

Medicare was passed into law on July 30, 1965

It was no doubt with good intentions (sic) that a mandatory tax to fund each persons eventual retirement was put in place. You can search online to learn how to calculate your Social Security benefits if you choose.

http://money.cnn.com/2000/02/02/social_security/q_retire_survivors/

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/506/infocus/p15.htm

There are some interesting tidbits in the ‘Survivor Benefits’ section.

Consider this my 'good deed' for the day, or a 'Public Service Announcement', as they used to say in Broadcasting.

sic 1 (sk)
adv.
Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

(Used in my case to denote disagreement in terms of Welfare State Legislation.)

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

There's this rumor going round that you didn't pay your IRS taxes for the past 30-40 years.

Is that true? Any other taxes you felt obliged to avoid?

If it is, you're sitting pretty.

Any comments on who's paying for your Medicare benefits?

That is if you are getting Medicare benefits. You've criticized me for assumptions in the past. How about straightening us out on these rumors.

Far be it for me to criticize you for accepting taxpayer funded benefits if you actually paid into them. No fudging now...moral and ethical constraints would simply not allow you to do that.

 

[oggbashan]

If the US social benefits are funded anything like the UK's then they are a giant Ponzi scheme.

I've paid "National Insurance" all my working life. If that part of my contributions which was intended for my pension had been invested, even at a relatively low rate of return, then it would have paid for my pension - in full.

Of course it wasn't. The contributions I paid were used to pay for benefits being paid then. My pension has to be funded by people paying National Insurance now.

The same happened, to a lesser extent, to my employers' private insurance schemes. I paid the maximum allowable amount from my pay. My employer paid a matching sum, effectively reducing my pay to do so. Then the government made three decisions.

The first was that my employers could take a contribution holiday when the pension scheme appeared to be fully funded. Of course they didn't increase my pay to compensate. When the dividends from shares fell substantially the "fully funded" status became partially funded. If my employers had continued paying during the fat years, they would have covered the lean years, but they didn't and built up a large hole in their pension fund.

The second was to remove tax relief on pension contributions. When there was tax relief I would still have paid tax on my pension when it was paid to me, so the tax relief just deferred the tax. Removing tax relief meant that I, and my employers, paid tax when I and they put money aside for my future pension, and then I would be taxed AGAIN when I received the pension. My net contributions, and my employers', fell by the amount of the tax.

The third was to introduce a special tax on contributions to pension schemes and all insurance. So now I was taxed three times. I was taxed on my contributions to the pension scheme. I was specially taxed on those contributions and taxed again when the pension was paid. If I had taken out insurance to pay for an additional pension, that was taxed as well. The "profits" and "dividends" from my insurance were also taxed.

It is not surprising that company pension schemes have become unaffordable drains on employers. But the culprit is not the employer, nor the managers of the pension scheme, but the Government who has seen people's savings for their future as suitable targets for additional taxation revenue.

People working now will be paying for their whole working life for the UK government's incompetence. When they retire, their pensions will be far lower than they could have been - taxed into insignificance.

Og

 

[amicus]

Thank you Oggbashan, I could not have described our system any better than you did yours.

I have long referred to our Social Security system as a giant Ponzi scheme, but few would even consider the issue.

Our payments went into the General Fund and was expended by government as they pleased. Like you, had Americans invested the funds taken from each paycheck into an interest bearing investment account, they could live off the interest and bequeath the capital as they pleased or spend it as they pleased.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

I agree with Amicus.

Shock! Horror!

But it is true. Governments don't see, or won't see, the long-term effects of paying benefits from current income instead of investing for future benefits. If a company did it, they would be prosecuted for running a Ponzi scheme.

In the UK for generations, pension funds and insurance for future pensions have paid for much of the investment in companies. Now those pension and insurance funds are taxed, current and future investments have been reduced.

Og

 

[Pure]

oh, lookit, here, dear!
what is it?
there's some men with a machine!
oh?
a big heavy metal machine, with metal wings!
oh?
and they think they're going to make it fly!
by god, what next?
but dear?
yes?
they don't seem to know-- it can't be done!
i think you're right.
metal don't fly!
by God.
my dear, God put the birds in the air, and gave 'em wings. not man and his
___helpmeet.
of course.
God had Adam _walk_ on the dusty earth!
oh dear!
He didn't mean for him to fly!
No, by Christ.

Oh, dear, i can't believe it!
What?
It's flying! the big, heavy machine is flying!
there'll be the devil to pay for this.
bloody Christ, dear, there will!

 

[stephen55]

Og, no one ever said that the UK has a monopoly on poor management of a program. That the program was poorly managed is the fault of the managers, not the program.

Social Security in the US...ditto.

Up here in The Great White North the Canada Pension Plan is doing well because it was never allowed to be mismanaged. The funds in the Plan have never been used for anything other than the benefits of the Plan. Estimates of future needs has always been matched by current contributions.

Most people have some form of employer or union based pension plan as well. For those who don't, actually for everyone, there is also Canada's RRSP (Registered Retirement Saving Plan). It works great. You own it and everything you put into it on a yearly basis is income tax deductible. All the interest and capital gains over the years you are building it are not taxed inside the plan. It's only when you retire and start to draw out of the plan that the money is taxed as income. Seeing as how your retirement income needs are very likely to be lower than your working years incomes, you end up paying far less in tax and have fund of money to use after retirement.

Economists who are knowledgeable about the US Social Security system have been warning about it's mismanagement for decades. That the system has never been put back on a solid footing...is the fault of the managers, whoever they are.

 

[ishtat]

If the US social benefits are funded anything like the UK's then they are a giant Ponzi scheme.

I've paid "National Insurance" all my working life. If that part of my contributions which was intended for my pension had been invested, even at a relatively low rate of return, then it would have paid for my pension - in full.

Of course it wasn't. The contributions I paid were used to pay for benefits being paid then. My pension has to be funded by people paying National Insurance now.

The same happened, to a lesser extent, to my employers' private insurance schemes. I paid the maximum allowable amount from my pay. My employer paid a matching sum, effectively reducing my pay to do so. Then the government made three decisions.

The first was that my employers could take a contribution holiday when the pension scheme appeared to be fully funded. Of course they didn't increase my pay to compensate. When the dividends from shares fell substantially the "fully funded" status became partially funded. If my employers had continued paying during the fat years, they would have covered the lean years, but they didn't and built up a large hole in their pension fund.

The second was to remove tax relief on pension contributions. When there was tax relief I would still have paid tax on my pension when it was paid to me, so the tax relief just deferred the tax. Removing tax relief meant that I, and my employers, paid tax when I and they put money aside for my future pension, and then I would be taxed AGAIN when I received the pension. My net contributions, and my employers', fell by the amount of the tax.

The third was to introduce a special tax on contributions to pension schemes and all insurance. So now I was taxed three times. I was taxed on my contributions to the pension scheme. I was specially taxed on those contributions and taxed again when the pension was paid. If I had taken out insurance to pay for an additional pension, that was taxed as well. The "profits" and "dividends" from my insurance were also taxed.

It is not surprising that company pension schemes have become unaffordable drains on employers. But the culprit is not the employer, nor the managers of the pension scheme, but the Government who has seen people's savings for their future as suitable targets for additional taxation revenue.

People working now will be paying for their whole working life for the UK government's incompetence. When they retire, their pensions will be far lower than they could have been - taxed into insignificance.

Og

Good summary Og. BUT and a big but is necessary, The USA has an expanding population available to pay present and future benefits. However, the population, particularly the permanent working population of the UK is either static or diminishing like the rest of Europe.

In future the taxable population will diminish compared to the proportion of the section of society being paid pensions and social security benefits. Governments will go into debt. Europe is destined to be a continent of Greeks.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Thank you Oggbashan, I could not have described our system any better than you did yours.

I have long referred to our Social Security system as a giant Ponzi scheme, but few would even consider the issue.

Our payments went into the General Fund and was expended by government as they pleased. Like you, had Americans invested the funds taken from each paycheck into an interest bearing investment account, they could live off the interest and bequeath the capital as they pleased or spend it as they pleased.

Amicus

At one time and one time only, there was a way to opt out of Social Security, a county here in Texas did just that. The withheld the same amounts as the Fed would have and invested those funds. With the principle and interest retirees are retiring at 3, 4, 5 times what they were making when working. Too bad other county, state cities didn't do the same thing. Huh.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Good summary Og. BUT and a big but is necessary, The USA has an expanding population available to pay present and future benefits. However, the population, particularly the permanent working population of the UK is either static or diminishing like the rest of Europe.

In future the taxable population will diminish compared to the proportion of the section of society being paid pensions and social security benefits. Governments will go into debt. Europe is destined to be a continent of Greeks.

Expanding? Sorry no. There are 135,000,000 million taxpayers. If 76,000,000 retire over the next 10 years. That leaves...oh wait...59,000,000 plus how ever minuscule the workforce increases over ten year, let's say 10,000,000. That's 69,000,000 left to pay the benefits of 76,000,000 plus the benefits of all those who are still alive already collecting benefits. Can you say taxed to death?

 

[TE999]

Economists who are knowledgeable about the US Social Security system have been warning about it's mismanagement for decades. That the system has never been put back on a solid footing...is the fault of the managers, whoever they are.

The managers in this case are the members of the US Congress of both parties who treat(ed) the Social Security funds collected like a petty cash box in which they put IOU's based on future contributions.

Any attempts at amending this situation are met with howls of outrage that the elderly will starve, sicken and die if the system is altered...so it continues as a Ponzi scheme, but the day of reckoning is fast approaching.

 

[Huckleman2000]

At one time and one time only, there was a way to opt out of Social Security, a county here in Texas did just that. The withheld the same amounts as the Fed would have and invested those funds. With the principle and interest retirees are retiring at 3, 4, 5 times what they were making when working. Too bad other county, state cities didn't do the same thing. Huh.

This sounds like some wing-nut email story. Source, please?

 

[amicus]

At one time and one time only, there was a way to opt out of Social Security, a county here in Texas did just that. The withheld the same amounts as the Fed would have and invested those funds. With the principle and interest retirees are retiring at 3, 4, 5 times what they were making when working. Too bad other county, state cities didn't do the same thing. Huh.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I didn't understand the 'one time and one time only', until I read that the Feds banned the ability to opt out of SS.

The Amish also opted out:

http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm

http://www.mackinac.org/1487

We really need to find a way to shake things up: privatize SS & Medicare, abolish Dpts. Ed, Energy, EPA and a hundred more at the Fed level...but so many rice bowls depend on government checks...I don't think it can be done without a really, really big STICK...?

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Baby Boomers are defined as being born during the period of time following World War Two and 1957; some 76 million babies were born during that period.

With government entitlement programs already under stress, Social Security and Medicare; what does the future hold for those on the verge of retirement?

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35.

Medicare was passed into law on July 30, 1965

It was no doubt with good intentions (sic) that a mandatory tax to fund each persons eventual retirement was put in place. You can search online to learn how to calculate your Social Security benefits if you choose.

http://money.cnn.com/2000/02/02/social_security/q_retire_survivors/

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/506/infocus/p15.htm

There are some interesting tidbits in the ‘Survivor Benefits’ section.

Consider this my 'good deed' for the day, or a 'Public Service Announcement', as they used to say in Broadcasting.



(Used in my case to denote disagreement in terms of Welfare State Legislation.)

Amicus

Just don't cash the checks, give the money back.....show some backbone....live your values and put your MOUTH where your MONEY is.......
fat chance of that you parasite......

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This sounds like some wing-nut email story. Source, please?

http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_texas_county_reforms/

It was back in 1981 and was Galveston County that opted out.

The only wing nut here is you I'm afraid...try to keep up with the rest of us.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Just don't cash the checks, give the money back.....show some backbone....live your values and put your MOUTH where your MONEY is.......
fat chance of that you parasite......

Yo, lipz...I want you to look up on this new fangled thing call the internet and find out how Social Security works. Anyone who has spent anytime in a real job, knows that the money you get at retirement is, well it's supposed to be, that which you paid in over your working life. Numnuts. When I get my SS Check that's my money I'm getting back.

Do you like looking like a fool or do you have to study to do it?

 

[DeeZire]

http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_texas_county_reforms/

It was back in 1981 and was Galveston County that opted out.

The only wing nut here is you I'm afraid...try to keep up with the rest of us.

Not everyone in Galveston is happy with their decision to opt out of SS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/28/usa.julianborger

While local civic leaders say the Galveston experiment represents a triumphant model for the country, Mrs Robison, who retired last year after 45 years' service, insists the scheme has left her about $250 a month worse off than if she had been allowed to stay in social security.

"They promised we would get three to four times as much as social security but ... I do not know one person who came out ahead," she said. "This is not the model they should use."

Though she walks with the aid of a cane these days, Mrs Robison speeds around town to rail against the Galveston plan, and encourage the more timid of the retired to speak out.

Rick Gornto was one of the Galveston plan's founders and is now president of First Financial Benefits, which administers the scheme. He sighs when he hears Mrs Robison's name and points out that she withdrew $40,000 from her account five years before her retirement to pay for heart surgery for her husband, under a clause allowing early withdrawals in cases of hardship. It inevitably reduced her pension.

"I realise we allowed people to take money out and that may have caused these problems. And we have now changed those hardship provisions," Mr Gornto said. He argues that, such special cases aside, the scheme has generated average returns of more than 6% over its 24 years and made everyone involved better off.

Mrs Robison insists that she has taken her special circumstances into account when comparing the two systems. Her former deputy, Joyce Longcoy, made no early withdrawal and also claims to be several hundred dollars a month worse off.

"How can this be a model?" Mrs Longcoy said. "You can't have what happened to us happen to the whole country."

The critics point to a 1999 study by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, which found that low earners tended to fare worse under the Galveston plan than under social security. It also found that people did better with social security if they lived longer, because the federal system is indexed to inflation. The private plan is not.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Yo, lipz...I want you to look up on this new fangled thing call the internet and find out how Social Security works. Anyone who has spent anytime in a real job, knows that the money you get at retirement is, well it's supposed to be, that which you paid in over your working life. Numnuts. When I get my SS Check that's my money I'm getting back.

Do you like looking like a fool or do you have to study to do it?

I can't believe that you don't know how SS works or more importantly: how it is funded. Given your general lack of knowledge about all things it's not surprising that you wouldn't know - and since you use the net for educating yourself, your ignorance of all things is a given.
Social Security is in fact not funded by the funds you contribute during your working life: those funds are used to pay current retirees, nearly nothing is in the 'vault'. The boomers' (by the fact that there were so many of us) contributions exceeded the payout for some years and those funds were appropriated for the general fund. This is the way it's always worked, not that you'd know that.
The SSA runs a tab while using the monies I pay to generate AmiCoots' and JBJ's retirement checks.If you used anything other that bogus websites and FAUX NEWS for info you'd know that.
Your ignorance is understandable if not excusable, 'Numb-nuts'.
If you're collecting SS then you're also eligible for medicaire. Amicus decries the loss of his freedoms and the welfare state he claims that these programs represent. Nothing could be further from the truth but truth isn't his or your strong suit anyway......If he feels so strongly about it he shouldn't compromise his principles and cash the checks...that's my point, Numb-nuts.
So why do you always have to defend amicus? Are you really his boneheaded alt? Not surprising, all things considered.............

 

[ishtat]

Expanding? Sorry no. There are 135,000,000 million taxpayers. If 76,000,000 retire over the next 10 years. That leaves...oh wait...59,000,000 plus how ever minuscule the workforce increases over ten year, let's say 10,000,000. That's 69,000,000 left to pay the benefits of 76,000,000 plus the benefits of all those who are still alive already collecting benefits. Can you say taxed to death?

Look at your numbers Zeb, they do not stack up. If more than half the working population was to retire in the next 10 years that would mean their current average age (of this retiring decile) would be 55 plus.... It isn't!

Then you had a "lets say" moment which states that there will only be 1,000,000 newcomers to the work force in each year of the ten, clearly a nonsense.

Sums are not your thing Zeb, off you go to the back of the class.

Incidentally the US will be taxed to death when :-

1 You have a federal VAT(value added tax) of 20%

2 90% of the poorest wage earners are paying PAYE tax

Those two scenarios prevail over much of Europe and the USA is a long way off from that - but heading inexorably in that direction, so whilst I disagree with your numbers the fight against government greed for tax is a worthy one.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Look at your numbers Zeb, they do not stack up. If more than half the working population was to retire in the next 10 years that would mean their current average age (of this retiring decile) would be 55 plus.... It isn't!

Then you had a "lets say" moment which states that there will only be 1,000,000 newcomers to the work force in each year of the ten, clearly a nonsense.

Sums are not your thing Zeb, off you go to the back of the class.

Incidentally the US will be taxed to death when :-

1 You have a federal VAT(value added tax) of 20%

2 90% of the poorest wage earners are paying PAYE tax

Those two scenarios prevail over much of Europe and the USA is a long way off from that - but heading inexorably in that direction, so whilst I disagree with your numbers the fight against government greed for tax is a worthy one.

You are confused...I said taxpayers...not workers. And while I did make some assumptions I believe they are valid. I did assume all the baby boomer were taxpayers, which may or may not be true, yet the all will retire. And if you will look again I assumed 10,000,000 taxpayers not workers would be added over that ten year period. The reason I limited it to taxpayers is because they are the ones with the burden to pay those 76,000,000 retirees.

 

[D_K_Moon]

Yo, lipz...I want you to look up on this new fangled thing call the internet and find out how Social Security works. Anyone who has spent anytime in a real job, knows that the money you get at retirement is, well it's supposed to be, that which you paid in over your working life. Numnuts. When I get my SS Check that's my money I'm getting back.

Do you like looking like a fool or do you have to study to do it?

It truly must suck being you. Nearly at the end of your life, and so full of hate and bitterness. What a waste.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It truly must suck being you. Nearly at the end of your life, and so full of hate and bitterness. What a waste.

First, who said I was at the end of my life? You make assumptions beyond you capabilities. And I could say the same to you, squaw.


And another thing...just because I don't agree with your arrogant ass I'm full of hate? Dumbass.

You have no idea how I feel about anything. And you are so full of it, oozes out your ears in little brown drops.

 

[D_K_Moon]

First, who said I was at the end of my life? You make assumptions beyond you capabilities. And I could say the same to you, squaw.

Nice try cloudy how many alts you going to use?

Sorry, you're a bit off the mark, wrong person, and wrong sex.

No, I don't think I'm making assumptions beyond my capabilities, all a person has to do is look at the steady stream of hatred pouring from you.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sorry, you're a bit off the mark, wrong person, and wrong sex.

No, I don't think I'm making assumptions beyond my capabilities, all a person has to do is look at the steady stream of hatred pouring from you.

So, I don't agree with your views it's hatred? Interesting and boring theory and used by democrats around the country. A bogus assumption. I suppose I'm also a racist and a nazi?

In the ignore bin you go.

 

[D_K_Moon]

So, I don't agree with your views it's hatred? Interesting and boring theory and used by democrats around the country. A bogus assumption. I suppose I'm also a racist and a nazi?

In the ignore bin you go.

Are you a racist and a nazi? I have no idea. You do seem to have a problem with the ethnicity of the president.