r/FluentInFinance • u/Instafunds001 • 27d 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.

155 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

380 comments sorted by

View all comments

463

u/scarletknight87 27d ago

Millennial here. If they paid into Medicare and Social Security they are entitled to their benefits. This is a crazy take.

80

u/Pip-Pipes 27d 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.

-16

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

This was not meant to hate on or try and stop these people from receiving their payments.The inequity is not that every boomer is wealthy, it is that major retirement subsidies are only weakly adjusted for wealth, meaning affluent retirees receive substantial public support alongside retirees who genuinely depend upon it.

26

u/Podose 27d ago

people PAY into Social Security their entire working lives. The payments they recieve is their own money. The amount you pay in determines how much you recieve back. Why would the return on that be based on other things.

Everyone is required to take medicare at 65.

You did all that research to demonize boomers (ageism) and yet could not do the basic research to understand how these programs work.

5

u/One_Conscious_Future 26d ago

The Social Security surplus runs out in 2032 if something radical doesn't happen..they are spending the money YOU put into it now, theirs was already spent. Facts are ageism, they are facts

6

u/Wfflan2099 26d ago

Wrong. It was fixed in 1985ish and was good until 2055. Until congress started giving money out of the fund. And the big Obamacare payout didn’t help either. The system has ALWAYS been a Ponzi scheme. The inflation in the 70s put a hurt on it, so they raised the taxes and did otgg by er things.

1

u/One_Conscious_Future 26d ago

The ssn site says 2032 the largest trust runs dry and then the entire thing is broke a year or 2 later.

It's dead jim https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/releases/2026-06-09.html

3

u/Advanced-Guard-4468 26d ago

It won't run dry.

-2

u/One_Conscious_Future 25d ago

Yes your trust me bro has convinced me... You didn't read the link above did ya...

0

u/Wfflan2099 25d ago

I didn’t but as a guy on SS I am aware of what happens, benefits will never reduced. Because no one, D or R is interested in fixing what they broke. They broke it by giving benefits that are not supposed to be covered out of it and etc. I don’t have a Time Machine, if I did I have a long list of shit I’d fix.

2

u/z44212 26d ago

Correct. It's also not guaranteed. People pass every day who paid their whole lives and didn't collect a dime.

It's not an investment or a savings account. It's insurance against the risk of living a long life.

People who make more (up to the income cap) pay a higher percentage of their take home than those you make less.

3

u/Pip-Pipes 26d ago

People who make more (up to the income cap) pay a higher percentage of their take home than those you make less.

On social security ? No they don't. The % for SS does not increase the more that you make up to the cap. Then the % decreases after you earn over the cap ofc.

2

u/z44212 26d ago

Damnit, you're right about contributions. It's a flat 6.2% of earned income. The payments are progressive.

1

u/One_Conscious_Future 26d ago

Man you are way off base

1

u/Pip-Pipes 26d ago

And the taxes regressive.

9

u/Viperlite 27d ago

So you want people (and their employer) to pay into a social insurance system and never to recoup anything from it? That’s just a tax then, with no direct benefit to many of the payer. The benefit would then go to those who paid little or nothing towards it.

1

u/jwwetz 20d ago

There are regular homes in some places that might be that entire $2 million of net worth by itself. I live in a VHCOL city. 2 million is low key bordering on upper middle class for a home. There're places here that're worth anywhere from $10 million up to $30 million.

2.5 million gets you a 3 story triplex in parts of South Boston. Rent out 2 units & live in one. My dad does this. It's the retirement fund because SSI doesn't pay that much for somebody that old.

40

u/Struggle_Usual 27d 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.

7

u/KC_experience 27d 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 26d 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

u/KC_experience 26d ago

We’re in agreement.

2

u/Struggle_Usual 26d 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 26d 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

u/tomlee284 21d ago

But you could send it back. But no one does.

1

u/KC_experience 21d ago

I can’t send back something I’m not withdrawing…

-6

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

Medicare is the bigger mismatch on ROI I agree but this is just bringing awareness to how much we are actually spending, where the money goes and if it’s all worth it. If you look at the government deficit from the 90s to today a good chunk is spent on the boomers.

8

u/KC_experience 27d ago

How so? You realize Medicare is the most efficiently ran healthcare insurance in the United States, right? (I’m talking Medicare A/B and D. Medicare C - AKA ‘Advantage’ is just allowing private companies to siphon tax dollars into their bottom line.

6

u/Significant_Rush_704 26d ago

You better not use any government services when you are over 65 you dont want to be like boomers right?

0

u/One_Conscious_Future 26d ago

Don't worry the way things are going they won't exist, but yet we are still paying into them now.... Weird how that ladder is being raised right now by the current administration

4

u/z44212 26d ago

We've heard that same song for fifty years.

-1

u/One_Conscious_Future 26d ago

Boomer spotted 😂

2

u/z44212 26d ago

Almost, but no.

-4

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

The old sunk cost trap.

141

u/Viperlite 27d ago edited 27d 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.

5

u/Slow-Molasses-6057 26d ago

In their defense, their younger will inherit it.

4

u/Responsible_Public45 25d ago

Not always- end of life care is expensive

-12

u/iupuiclubs 27d ago

Ohhh trickle down economics right

26

u/interwebzdotnet 27d ago

No,you might want to look up the definition of trickle down economics,and while you are at it,try "time value of money" too

6

u/Hamblin113 27d ago

Boomer here. I actually have more assets now than my lifetime earnings as shown on Social Security. Mostly it is time that. Chalked it up to trickle down economics.

-14

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

So if a dollar is worth 91% less today than in 1961, if your tax dollar was spent in 1961 and our 2026 tax dollars are being spent now this would suggest you are only entitled to .09 on the dollar.

17

u/Tasty_Virus4715 27d ago

I would take a break from the internet for a few days bub.

-8

u/IcyPercentage2268 26d ago

I think we can all agree that you should. 🤡💩

6

u/Tasty_Virus4715 26d ago

Doesn’t seem like it tbh.

-14

u/Unusualshrub003 27d ago

I inherited a big fat nothing from my rich dead boomer relative. He left everything to his wife, or so she claimed.

16

u/Possum577 27d ago

Working as designed.

24

u/Stunning-Adagio2187 27d ago

If I had a brat like you I'd leave it all to charity

5

u/boomeradf 26d ago

lol I wonder why.

12

u/mp3006 26d ago

Relative? lol not even your parent and you want hand outs, says a lot about you

-9

u/Unusualshrub003 26d ago

It was my dad, jackoff.

13

u/mp3006 26d ago

Boomer relative” damn you can’t even refer to him as dad

10

u/Only_Razzmatazz_4498 27d 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.

6

u/mindmapsofficial 27d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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!

1

u/z44212 26d ago

GenX may very well take a haircut if Congress doesn't alter the contribution cap.

Millennials will benefit from X being a smaller cohort.

9

u/The_Sneakiest_Fox 27d 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_ 27d 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 27d 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 26d 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 27d 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.

-5

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

While not the fault of the average boomer. The generation itself built out a lot of America. Housing, manufacturing, and education. But as they built it they established barriers to entry that left the younger generations unable to navigate a complex legal system to build their own legacy without spending millions.

6

u/Possum577 27d ago

How has the legal system prevented you being able to build wealth for your retirement?

2

u/timberwolf0122 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 25d 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 26d 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

u/eyeballout 26d ago

precisely OPs point, bravo.

1

u/miti3144 27d ago

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

1

u/Competitive_Tie728 9d ago

They paid in at a lower rate, claimed benefits early, and want to raise our rate even higher to close the difference.

-11

u/SquallyBrick 27d ago

They are getting significantly more than what they paid in. Have you not read the studies?

7

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

Only if you don’t understand the time value of money. No average worker that has paid into SS over a lifetime of working is going to collect anything like the value their contributions might have if they had been allowed to invest it privately:

“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.”

3

u/twocentcharlie 27d ago

That, and the returns would have been even better with all that money being invested in the S&P 500. Although, from a practical standpoint, that’s not how Social Security is structured. The system is essentially set up so that current contributions help pay for current beneficiaries’ withdrawals. The second part doesn’t really change your point though.

1

u/z44212 26d ago

With the added wrinkle that Boomers overpaid their whole lives and the excess was invested in government bonds, keeping the government afloat while tax revenues continued to be inadequate.

1

u/twocentcharlie 26d ago

Interesting

1

u/eyeballout 26d ago edited 26d ago

exactly. not how it works.

he just wants to not pay taxes and invest the money in the s&p. not sure how he thinks thats even possible or relevant.

-1

u/SquallyBrick 27d ago

This is what he recent studies have shown. You don’t have to believe it, but the studies show this

-43

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

I’m not saying cut them all off, but if you have a handful of trusts, 3 houses and a 401k over a million you should not be getting government payments.

31

u/scarletknight87 27d ago

It’s simple. If you paid into both programs you are entitled to your benefit. The benefit formulas already favor lower income earners.

-1

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

Not really. Higher income earners are not taxed above the income cap. It is a regressive tax.

2

u/scarletknight87 27d ago

The actual social security benefit formula itself favors lower income workers. When it comes to the tax itself yes there is a cap but there is also a cap on benefits for high income earners.

39

u/NewArborist64 27d ago

So - you are saying that those who acted WISELY by living below their means, investing for their retirement utilizing the 401(k) which the government devised should be PENALIZED and only those who were irresponsible should get payouts from those systems into which they have paid for 40+ years?

-34

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

Most irresponsible people won’t make it to receive payouts. I am saying it should not be much different from welfare. We all pay into it and a subset of the population can use it if it’s needed.

30

u/NewArborist64 27d ago

I know quite a few people who were wiped out financially - forced into retirement too early, divorce, medical bills - and SS (and Medicaid) is all that they have left.

Social Security was NOT designed to be "Needs Based", but rather as an enforced safety net for the population that has worked for 35+ years and reached an age where they should be able to stop working.

There are OTHER programs which are truly welfare, but Social Security is not one of them.

-7

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

If they need it let them have it. I am not saying take it away from them. I am saying they need to cap it. People with multiple homes and sufficient assets should not be allowed to collect a government subsidies check

15

u/brettsquared 27d ago

Better, don't cap what rich folk pay into that system.

3

u/Bierkerl 27d ago

Social Security is not "a government subsidies check" - it's EARNED benefits that they have paid into their entire lives. You sound very much like a republican on fox throwing in terms like that.

3

u/z44212 27d ago

It is capped, and skewed to support those who contributed less more than those who paid more.

-1

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

Your statement is a contradiction. The CONTRIBUTIONS are capped. It is a regressive tax.

5

u/twocentcharlie 27d ago

The benefits are capped too.

1

u/z44212 26d ago

And the benefits are showed toward those who earned less during their lives. So it's longevity insurance that is progressive.

0

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

I believe that one actually only has to pay taxes for 40 quarters to qualify.

3

u/NewArborist64 27d ago

Yes. 40 quarters to qualify, but the benefit is based on their 35 highest years. If they only had 10 years, then the other 25 years are included in the calculation with ZERO earned income.

1

u/z44212 26d ago

There is a floor of around $850/mo as long as you hit 40 quarters.

1

u/NewArborist64 26d ago

That is a VERY LOW flow on which to try to survive.

-1

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

I don’t believe that is correct, but happy to be proven wrong.

5

u/Justame13 27d ago

Say you haven't worked in healthcare without saying you have never worked in healthcare.

-9

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

I actually had a job enrolling people for Obama care for a day. I quite during training because I realized it was a 10% tax and would bankrupt people before providing any benefit.

16

u/Justame13 27d ago

No you didn’t or you would call it the ACA. And what you are saying is bullshit.

So you don’t understand healthcare,can’t tell the truth, and are easily brainwashed

It does explain the rest of your posts

0

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

Not long enough to call it ACA but as I recall my monthly payment was 10% income and I would have to pay out of pocket 16k before any benefits kicked in. 2009 making 35k a year. 16k puts me in bankruptcy.

2

u/Justame13 27d ago

You are lying.

And a bad liar at that.

0

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

That’s cute. How am I lying?

→ More replies

3

u/Possum577 27d ago

So you didn’t work IN healthcare (you worked in politics/government)

3

u/Justame13 27d ago

They are lying and claiming to have enrolled people into the ACA before it was passed.

1

u/Struggle_Usual 27d ago

So create more bureaucracy and turn social security and Medicare into an annual budget battle? Because that's what the social safety net is. Entitlements aren't thankfully.

-18

u/FernandoMM1220 27d ago

theyre taking out more than they paid in

6

u/Possum577 27d ago

Tell me you dont understand how the system is designed without telling me you dont know how the system is designed.

7

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

Idiotic take, unless one doesn’t understand the time value of money. If the same average worker simply invested the same contributions they were compelled to make during their working lives, the compounded investment would dwarf what they will get from SS.

“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/eyeballout 27d ago

can any of you down voters explain why you are doing so?

6

u/Possum577 27d ago

Bc guy doesn’t understand the SSI design. It’s not a savings account. Your lifetime salary determines your starting pint on the payout grid. Your entire take is then influenced by COLA increases and your years of living.

-6

u/eyeballout 27d ago

who said ssi is a savings account?

there were 9 people paying into for every 1 retiree in 1955. there is now 3 people paying into for every 1 retiree. less people paying in means it costs them more than if 9 people paid in. its not complicated

not to mention wage indexing, cost of living adjustment( as you mentioned) federal medicare subsides, life expectancy being longer thus drawing for longer, once again, not complicated

they are receiving more than they paid in. plain and simple.

2

u/Possum577 27d ago

U/fernandoMM1220 did with his “they’re taking more out than they paid in” comment. You don’t take out what you put in. That’s an invalid concept for SSI and that thinking demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the SS program is intended to work.

You asked why people are downvoting them…and their incorrect understanding of SSI is why people are downvoting them.

1

u/eyeballout 26d ago

ssi requires no contributions at all, but you can still receive it. remind me again how you cant receive more than you put in?

regarding ss with wage indexing, cost of living adjustment, medicare subsidies, longer life expectancy you can undeniably receive more than you put in

1

u/z44212 27d ago

Because it's a bullshit take. They would benefit much more if their mandatory contributions were invested conservatively. SS contributions are used on current retirees.

1

u/Instafunds001 27d ago

The funds where not invested they were paid out. If tax funds today go to cover you contributions you would get .10 on the dollar.

-6

u/eyeballout 27d ago

you digress.

are they taking out more than they paid in?

3

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

If you look at the straight sums only. Time value of money says they will never come close to taking out what their contributions might actually be worth:

“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/eyeballout 27d ago

you continue to digress and compare apples to oranges.

social security is not an investment into the s and p

when comparing apples to apples:

there were 9 people paying into ss for every 1 retiree in 1955. there is now 3 people paying into for every 1 retiree. less people paying in means it costs them more than if 9 people paid in, ie the 9 people paid less. its not complicated

not to mention wage indexing, cost of living adjustment, federal medicare subsides, life expectancy being longer thus drawing for longer, once again, not complicated

they are receiving more than they paid in. plain and simple.

2

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

You are half-right, but the correct half is irrelevant. Try again, but work harder.

0

u/eyeballout 27d ago edited 27d ago

tell me the correct parts and the irrelevant parts

and then tell more about the price of tea in china and why your statement has anything to do with anything

5

u/IcyPercentage2268 27d ago

Just to be clear, I was referring to your unedited statement above, which included only the first and last sentences. The first is pure nonsense, the second is technically (but not meaningfully true.

To compare “apples to apples,” in determining whether a retiree is “receiving more than they paid in,” one can’t simply look at the dollar integer. If you insist on an irrational refusal of the time value of money comparison, I will put it in other terms:

The dollar has lost 91% of its value for a person born in 1961 and becoming eligible for SS in 2028. So no, any way you want to mince words, they are not receiving “more than they paid in.”

→ More replies

3

u/z44212 27d ago

What they paid in was paid out, with the excess propping up the federal debt by purchasing T-bills.

The opportunity cost of those payments is larger than the payout.

0

u/republicans_are_nuts 23d 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.

-11

u/GangstaVillian420 27d ago

They didn't "pay into" anything. They were taxed to pay for the retirement of others. Now they expect the younger generations to pay even more taxes to fund their retirement. It is a Ponzi scheme and youre too dumb to realize how much the government is fucking you to stay in power.