You young 'uns out there, listen up.

[connieb]

I don't think only the young will. But, a person starting work at 25 will ( the age quoted in the article) will likely work for 40 years at the increased tax rate. The person who is approcaching retirement, will likely work no more than 18 years at the increased rate. Certainly seems to me that the younger generations are getting the short end of the stick.

The governemnt was remiss in addressing these problems. Its actually comforting to see that the Germans, generally considered fiscally and economically conservative, are struggling with it too. I guess they fell into the same trap... tell people they will get a nice benny so they vote for you, then figure out how to pay for it later on someone else's back.

 

[gabriel]

retirees are no different than any other group. some rich, some poor some in the middle. and ss is not a tax, its a pension contribution. and what the hell is a medicare tax. do you have a single clue what goes on in germany, ?

 

[OldGaffer]

Do you think FDR started Social Security for votes? Do you think LBJ started Medicare for votes?

 

[connieb]

I think that similar comparisons could be made here with the lack of for thought and lack of consideration of how to address an aging population with a smaller pool of workers. I think we do face some of the same issues. Which I don't think we have done a good job addressing. So, it is interesting to see how Germany addressed it, because, it could very well become the way we have to. Sooner or later we have to address it. And, I do think our government has been equally remiss in applying the taxes on the wages of the boomers while we they were working.

Although I will say that in our country I generally think of the boomers as a little older than what they are talking about here.

 

[gabriel]

whatv do you mean a few years to pay in? pay into what? this thread was about health insurance. if costs go up, premiums go up. and now premiums are going up.

 

[connieb]

I thought it was pretty clear I was trying to relate the problems to the ones we have here. Which are similar in nature. But, if that was unclear to you, I appologize.

 

[gabriel]

dont be crazy. as these young ones get older, more young people will come into the work force to pay for them. thats how social security insurance works. i paid all my life too but my premiums were much smaller at first. governments increase premiums to take care of increased costs!

 

[imreallyperplexed]

connie,

One thing to keep in mind is that in Germany, there are lots more benefits provided to the young as well. University is free. Childcare expenses are covered. I don't know the full details. But the young do get a lot of benefits so presumably they have less debt and are in a generally better situation than many young people in the U.S. Again, that is one reason that it is difficult to compare the U.S. and Germany directly.

If you are asking me. Yes, I am. My issue is why, when they were young and working did we not address the fact that there were more of them and they would be living longer and costing us more, and make them pay it in then, while they could. Here we are, with a few years left at the most for them to pay in, and the rest of the generations will be picking up the slack for them. And, then, possibly what taxes other than an increase in wage taxes on the young can be done about this? Can we tax their other income benefits more? Can we tax their interest? Can we take a tax out of their 401K draw for extra SS they should have paid in?

I think it is extremely irresponsible to set up a system and then not fund it properly and wait until the choices are starvation for the old, or taxes on the younger generations, to fund it properly.

 

[gabriel]

unclear is an understatement

 

[imreallyperplexed]

I don't think that Sarge was being serious in the comparison. The problems may be similar but the context is very different. You need to understand the two contexts. A simpleminded comparison can be a dangerous thing.

But, if you are saying that the problems are worth considering, I agree with you. So does President Obama (despite the political pap that you hear from Republicans.) BTW, I do have a stake in the argument. I am pushing 60 and my kids are 19 and 21. I would not want Mitt Romney in charge of their future. I'd much prefer Barack Obama. But to each his or her own.

I think that similar comparisons could be made here with the lack of for thought and lack of consideration of how to address an aging population with a smaller pool of workers. I think we do face some of the same issues. Which I don't think we have done a good job addressing. So, it is interesting to see how Germany addressed it, because, it could very well become the way we have to. Sooner or later we have to address it. And, I do think our government has been equally remiss in applying the taxes on the wages of the boomers while we they were working.

Although I will say that in our country I generally think of the boomers as a little older than what they are talking about here.

 

[Sgt Staples]

did you notice how he skewed the item. the actual tax applies to ALL ages but he tries to suggest its a tax on the young only.

Nope; the author of the article rightly pointed out that it is an increase in taxes on the younger segment of the population to redistribute wealth to the older segment of the population.

And by the way, old people who, when younger, saved for their retirement, rather than letting themselves be dependent on scams like social security, won't have a problem when the well runs dry.

Go ahead, vote OBAMA; if you have more than two pair of pants, you will become officially a member of the rich, after he's re-elected, and wham, bam, thank you ma'am, your pocket is going to empty into his.

 

[connieb]

I don't think we can make a direct comparison. But, in general, I think that both systems should have made better calculations to address the aging populations and how to best make those who were aging shoulder that responsibility. In this country it is likely that next generation will not meet or exceed the income level of their parents for the first time in generations......... So, I do think that in this case, future generations will be struggling where as those who are preparing for retirement should have perhaps in the last 10 or 15 years, having to shoulder more of their own burden.

 

[connieb]

Yeah... cause we are having so many more kids now..... People are deciding to have fewer children. And, why you would advocate forcing your debt onto the backs of your offspring is beyond me. Most parents want to look out for their children's well being. Rather self serving.

 

[BleedingHeadKen]

so its better to let the old starve?

When have they starved?

 

[Sgt Staples]

But, in general, I think that both systems should have made better calculations to address the aging populations and how to best make those who were aging shoulder that responsibility.

Back when we were a free country, before the shackles of dependency were imposed on our society, (When Social Security was originally proposed it was opposed by a majority, as they were afraid of the dependency it would create, and they were right,) people used to be more frugal. Our education system, which at that time was not being run by Marxists,actually taught personal responsibility, how to budget and save money, and warned against borrowing more than could comfortably paid for.

Now, the young get out of school, and they already owe more than I ever owed in my entire lifetime. That's what happens when you subsidize schools and subsidize the students who attend those schools. All of that money inflates the cost of education.

Just as subsidized medicine raises the costs of medical treatments, subsidized retirement programs raise the cost of retirement. All this deficit spending to sustain these programs inflates prices and devalues the currency, until, viola, you have Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy Ireland, England, and now the US all going bust.

And the government's answer, raise taxes, raise taxes some more, until it becomes more profitable to live off the government than it does to work for a living.

And apparently, a large segment of society wants more, not less, government.

The Home of the Free and Land of the Brave had been fundamentally transformed into the home of the gimme, gimme, and the land of the 'free ride.'

We're done.

 

[connieb]

Yeah, what does it matter anymore.. the next generation will just pay for it.

It sickens me the amount of debt we have shouldered my children and future grandchildren with.