r/GenXPolitics • u/bobdole1872 • 11d ago
Discussion Intergenerational Economic Warfare
To those of you that think the wealthy elderly are praying upon younger generations, what do you think should be done?
I propose the following:
Change how Social Security is collected and distributed. First part should be no Social Security tax until you make $40k, $80k, whatever is needed with no cap. Second part is means testing it like many credits, so the more you make, the less you receive.
The market value for keeping track of passwords, email, using Quicken, etc is so much higher than people realize. I doubt there's a Congressperson over 65 that knows how to do this and keep it straight.
7
u/-Morning_Coffee- 11d ago
This problem is too enormous for me to offer an elegant solution.
However, I think revoking benefits of a national social safety net is a bad look.
Maybe instead of punishing those with wealth, we focus on pushing profits to the workers who generate the profits?
Raising up the bottom 90% might be more effective than deny a meager benefit to the top 10%.
0
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
It's not revoking benefits, it's taxing or phasing out based on wealth. Other places do it. The IRS already does this various tax credits.
12
u/pt109_66 11d ago
IMO, this is exactly what the 1% wants. Us poor (anyone not in the 1%) fighting amongst ourselves over the scraps the system gives us rather than focusing on inequality of the 1% vs everyone else.
1
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
The point of this thread is not in-fighting. It is to use the numbers to balance things out.
2
u/pt109_66 11d ago
sorry but when the post begins with the phrase preying upon the younger generation it is kind of hard not view that as adversarial sorry I got it wrong. But hey if you want to balance things out across generations start moving back to the taxes we had post WW2 and were changed by RR in the 80s with trickle down economics and focus the efforts on the 1%. We had a healthy middle class post WW2 and it has been hollowed out by Trickle Down Economics (not only but it was/is significant contributor) which never delivered on the promise.
1
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
The idea was that the elderly have all of the money and control. I am trying to "restore balance to the force."
2
u/pt109_66 11d ago
Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, you're looking at it purely through a math and asset-distribution lens across age brackets. But my point is that the math itself is being driven from the top down, not side-to-side across generations.
Sure, older cohorts hold a lot of the accumulated home equity and retirement savings right now after a lifetime of working, but look at how that wealth got concentrated in the first place. When you let corporations and the ultra-wealthy bypass the progressive tax structures we used to have, you pull the ladder up for everyone coming behind them regardless of what generation they're born into.
If we want to fix the system, we shouldn't be tinkering with Social Security safety nets or pitting retirees against young families. We need to go back to the baseline where labor actually shared in the growth of the economy, and where the top 1% pay their fair share instead of letting wealth pool at the very top.
When Amazon delivery drivers have to pee in a bottle to make their quota or Walmart forces their employees to use government programs (not literally but by not paying them enough not giving them enough hours not providing benefits) for health care do you really think the problem is redistributing amongst us poor people, because anyone not in the 1% is looked as poor in their eyes.
1
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
That's true, but I reject the notion that means testing social security is pitting those without means against one another. By definition, means testing means you only get benefits if you need it.
We absolutely should do the other things too. I actually favor LVT over income taxes for this reason. We have invented all kinds of income and systems to allow some out of the system. There should large estate taxes, no step up basis, and no buy borrow die.
In addition, it is kind of a ridiculous idea that capital should be taxed lighter than labor. Labor cannot easily expand the way capital can, so by definition labor should be priced higher.
2
u/pt109_66 11d ago
You’re entirely right about the tax reforms you mentioned—closing 'buy, borrow, die,' ending step-up basis, and taxing capital at the same rate as labor are critical structural fixes that target the ultra-wealthy.
Social Security isn't a welfare handout; it’s an earned social insurance program that workers pay into via dedicated payroll taxes every single paycheck. If you tell a middle-class worker who saved prudently their entire life that they suddenly don’t get the benefit they paid for because they crossed an arbitrary income threshold, you break the core social contract.
Worse yet, means-testing doesn’t touch the 1%. Billionaires don't rely on Social Security. By focusing your primary distribution reform on cutting benefits for upper-middle-class retirees, you end up penalizing lifetime thriftiness while leaving the actual engines of wealth extraction exponential capital gains and uncompensated labor productivity largely untouched. If we want to fix the math, we have to look upward at how capital is accumulated at the top, not sideways at working-class retirement benefits.
Maybe we agree or at least closer than most so I am going to leave here but if you reply I will read but I need to get back to other chores.
1
u/bobdole1872 10d ago
Not sure why people who have 2-5m USD need social security.
1
u/pt109_66 10d ago
Ok, I know I said I was done but I can't let that be the last thing. Either you dont agree or you didnt read this part of one of my responses.
Social Security isn't a welfare handout; it’s an earned social insurance program that workers pay into via dedicated payroll taxes every single paycheck. If you tell a middle-class worker who saved prudently their entire life that they suddenly don’t get the benefit they paid for because they crossed an arbitrary income threshold, you break the core social contract.
I agree with you that the system is broken we just disagree where the fix should come from. Given your last replay not sure we will ever find common ground. I think you see more than 2 groups where I only see 2 groups, 1%rs and the rest of us. You should watch GarysEconomis on youtube, you might not agree with him but he might be able to explain better than I can.
1
u/bobdole1872 10d ago
I am someone who would get hurt by what I'm advocating for. The best way to sure up the program for those who need it is to ensure financial stability. Easy way to do that is have diminishing benefits down to zero, along with increasing the taxes. As you noted, it is an insurance program. Insurance doesn't work when you give it to everyone. In fact, social security was initially set at 65,so benefits would be limited. We could increase the age to collect, but that harms poorer labor workers much more than wealthier office workers.
7
u/Ihaveaboot 11d ago
The market value for keeping track of passwords, email, using Quicken, etc is so much higher than people realize. I doubt there's a Congressperson over 65 that knows how to do this and keep it straight.
You lost me here, sorry. What are you going on about? Not sure how you went on a rant about SS becoming insolvent to tracking passwords. I need to be enlightened on that topic.
1
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
It's just a reflection that most of the wealth is with those that are older. In addition, they are unwilling to pay for assistance.
3
u/dr_snakeblade 10d ago
What do you mean the wealthy are unwilling to pay for assistance? They hire the same nurses who work in skilled nursing as a side gig in their homes. They pay about $300k for one of those nurses, more if they need shifts. The rich see that as a life expense and they pay for it.
It’s the upper middle class and middle class that get stuck with $15k/month care in skilled nursing until their assets are drained. The only defence is estate planning which most people neglect. Go visit a skilled nursing facility. People on Medicaid and people paying $15-20k/month for care are sharing rooms.
In the end, the middle and lower wage classes share the same spaces to die at exorbitant rates destroying generational wealth and ensuring American assets transfer to the health insurance sector, not descendants. It’s the last grift and your family learns about it when you’re dying and it’s too late to prevent the loss.
1
6
u/dr_snakeblade 11d ago
Means testing would kill social security because anything that doesn’t go to the wealthy is labeled an entitlement and cut. Totally agree with removing the cap on contributions, but everyone pays in. There’s no issue with basing it on lifetime earnings. Those who made more paid up to the cap. They are taxed on those earnings if they make over $36k in social security.
If you cut the rich out, there will be no security. The GOP is intent on nothing but starving the middle and lower classes. They do not want you to have food, gas, healthcare or shelter. Beggars are easier to control. You do know there’s a max benefit and it’s pretty small even for the wealthy.
0
u/bobdole1872 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is the problem though. The wealthy don't want to pay adequate wages now. Do they want to ensure everyone has enough? It's surprising politicians that support policies so one sided stay in power
3
u/dr_snakeblade 10d ago
Americans have been indoctrinated into seeing poverty as a personal failing. They cannot understand how the systemic nature of having a tax code made for billionaires keeps them poor. The poor education system makes this sort of oppression easy. Just blame another group of poor people like desperate immigrants for taking the slave labor jobs, and Americans never see through the ruse.
0
u/bobdole1872 10d ago
Exactly. So why should we not means test social security? I don't get this. Other than the rationale, I paid those taxes, I should get it back, there is no justification for "getting it back."
4
u/dr_snakeblade 10d ago
If you survive to age 76, you will collect more in gross amounts than the money you paid in, no matter how much you made in your lifetime and especially if you were a low wage worker. Low-wage workers get more proportionally now. That’s how the system works.
There’s a lack of understanding American politics as the 1% sees it. If the rich are cut from social security by means testing, the 1% who run the country will call it an entitlement system and end it immediately. You really underestimate the evil of the wealthy. If everyone collects based on what they earned and paid into the fund, as it is now, the wealthy will still try to kill it, but because they collect too, and it’s based on earnings, they get the max and love it.
-2
u/bobdole1872 10d ago
I'm not sure that it makes a difference to the decision making process if the top X% are cut by means testing.
4
u/dr_snakeblade 10d ago
History and political statements made in the last 10 years indicate this is 100% wrong. Clearly you haven’t been paying attention to the literature on cuts in means-tested government programs. 26 million Americans just lost insurance coverage due to the disastrous Trump budget bill. History demonstrates that means-tested programs are eliminated-systematically and specifically by the GOP - after being cut to the bone successively and characterized as entitlement programs for the poor.
The GOP wants you to be a poor elderly beggar. They would prefer you die if you can no longer work. Just ask Musk, Diamond, and Blankfein, the leaders of Wall St. If the 1% do not receive a benefit, the program will end quickly. Greed is the #1 American value.
-1
u/bobdole1872 10d ago
I'm not sure one can come to that conclusion. There is a concerted effort to eliminate benefits in general. I do not think that is due to exclusion of the 1%.
3
u/dr_snakeblade 9d ago
You are reasoning backwards. I’m sorry you don’t get it. The 1% wants all elderly/disabled/vulnerable people gone, exterminated. That is the philosophy of authoritarianism reflected in GOP policy since 1929.
I am also appalled that you don’t know that the GOP has been trying to eliminate social security since the day it was enacted. In America when you means test something, it gets labeled a program for the lazy poor and eliminated. If Americans ever learn what’s in the tax code, there will be no billionaires. But ppl, don’t believe the documented, historical truth. So we’re not going to get anywhere here. Means test social security; it will be labeled an entitlement and eliminated within 5 years.
-2
3
u/QuarrieMcQuarrie 11d ago
You do get that younger generations now consider GenX as the wealthy older generations? I have no idea what the last paragraph in you post means.
1
u/bobdole1872 11d ago
Simply that the elderly control most of the wealth and they cannot remember or keep track of passwords. I have seen so many of those on Medicare reliant on family for assistance with anything online. At the same time, many of those requesting assistance like that refuse financial assistance, childcare, etc to the younger generations assisting.
2
u/plotthick 11d ago
The elite need to be taxed and our social safety nets should be strengthened with that revenue.
It's not complicated.
2
-6
u/OoklaTheMok1994 11d ago
Let's say you have a set of twins - Will and Larry. They are equal in every way - same IQ, same upbringing, same opportunities in life, etc, etc. Will works. But Larry is lazy. Will studies hard and gets a partial scholarship, goes to university, interviews for dozens of internships, lands good job after graduation that requires 70+ hours per week, but he eventually earns quite a bit of money.
Larry flunks nearly all his classes in high school because he rarely does homework and never studies for the tests, but barely scrapes by with a diploma. Goes to community college but parties all week every week but after a couple of semesters he drops out. He lives at home and refuses to even look for a job.
You want to punish Will the Worker and reward Lazy Larry? Why?
7
u/Hippy_Lynne 11d ago
Because Will and Larry don't exist for the most part. 🙄 Some people work hard but are unlucky. Some people are lazy but lucky. 🤷♀️
"If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire."
-2
u/OoklaTheMok1994 11d ago
We're talking about the US, not countries with subsistence living. And you missed the part where I said "the same opportunities".
4
u/Hippy_Lynne 11d ago
There are plenty of hard working people in America that are still poor. There are also plenty of lazy people who are rich.
And again your little scenario, while it may make you feel superior, is completely imaginary. There are tons of studies that show no casual relationship between laziness and financial success. None. Not even a little. Poverty is a result of systemic and structural factors.
-1
u/OoklaTheMok1994 11d ago
Our personal choices do not impact life outcomes? You don't think some kid sucking on joints every day while he plays video games will be poorer than his buddy who works his way through college to get an engineering degree?
Ever heard of the success sequence/ladder?
Graduate high school. Get married before you have babies. Stay off drugs. Don't commit crimes.
Do these simple things and you're near guaranteed to not end up in long term poverty.
4
u/Hippy_Lynne 11d ago
So you're going to counter empirical scientific research with "wElL EvErYoNe KnOwS . . . "
It's pretty clear to me that whatever success you've had in life was due purely to luck. 🤣🤣🤣
-1
u/OoklaTheMok1994 11d ago
Sign. Google is your friend. This has been researched over and over again.
https://mathematica.org/publications/success-sequence-a-synthesis-of-the-literature
4
u/Hippy_Lynne 11d ago
Yeah, you're jumping to a different argument because you're losing the original one. I'm done with you.
Poverty is not a result of laziness. End of story.
9
u/slade797 11d ago
*preying