this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
224 points (82.7% liked)

News

23314 readers
3331 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
224
Young Americans turn against Boomers over Social Security (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z say the system needs reform, an exclusive Newsweek poll found, amid fears the benefits won’t exist when they come to retire

Younger generations in the U.S., including millennials and Gen Zers, are much more likely to believe that the Social Security system needs reforming than those in their 60s and 70s, according to a recent survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek.

...

Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.

Gen Zers (ages 18-26), millennials (ages 27-42) and Gen Xers (ages 43-58) were more likely than boomers (59 and older) to think that Social Security should be reformed.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 219 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

This is a propaganda article. It's meant to start the idea that social security change should happen; Social Security had a surplus and was on track to support Gen Z with boomer level benefits until George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war. A 100 billion+ surplus (which would have been 2T by 2011) was sucked dry at a billion dollars a day for a war that brought nothing but misery. This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.

Social Security is currently facing an uncertain future as it is expected to face a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, unless something changes until then.

Some bullshit conservative think tank is trying to spin up the idea of cutting benefits to prevent taxing billionaires. Don't let the rich lie anymore. Make the rich pay!

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Man, wish we could have put that money in some sort of locked box...

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 26 points 10 months ago

Oh yesh, the "locked box" tag lines. Again and again and again during speeches, debates, and articles. Back when news cycles and ongoing stories were measured in weeks rather than hours.

[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Social Security should be reformed. The surplus should be given back and laws passed that forbid touching it. Further:

  • The amount paid out should be significantly increased (after decades of working I would make less than $3,000/mo on SSDI, for example, which isn’t enough for me to live on my own even)
  • There should be no income cap for taxation purposes
  • The retirement age should be lowered to 60 and taxes/formulas modified accordingly.
  • It should not take years for anyone to make it through applying for disability.

Honestly, Social Security should also be responsible for paid sick/family leave, short term and long term temp/perm disability, unemployment, etc. We in the US could have it so much better…

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Yeah and it should be allowed to hold companies that are bailed out as long as its financial advisers choose.

Hell when it’s time for UBI this is the administration to do it

[–] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Your forgetting Ronald Reagan was the one who started borrowing from it and saying here is an IOU

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

There has never been a separate fund. The "money" is still there, its in IOU's.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (12 children)

Yeah it’s not enough to live on. I want to be able to survive on social security when I’m old, so I’ll fight for old people to be able to survive on it now. And a little something for a surplus.

Taxes aren’t why you’re poor, shit pay is

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war

Not really. Bush ended Clinton's budget surplus and replaced it with a budget deficit, and I won't argue if you hold the wars responsible.

But SS is not part of the normal budget. It was running a surplus in the Bush years. There was a debate over what to do with the surplus.

Keeping it "stuffed in a mattress" would be irresponsible for the same reason most of us don't keep our life savings in a checking account. Bush wanted to invest it in the stock market, but the public rightly thought that was too risky. So it was invested in the most risk-free asset: Treasury bonds.

That means that the government could spend the surplus, but they are required to pay it back with interest. Failing to pay back SS would trigger a default, no different than crashing through the debt ceiling.

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 5 points 10 months ago

The Social Security Trust Fund is nearly $3T

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 101 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Millennials and Gen-Z need to be fucking pissed about any one spouting the bs talking point that social security will just dry up by the time we retire so it’s best not to count on it. Social Security is something we’ve all paid in to, so it better fucking be there when we retire. That’s the deal. I realize there is a funding shortfall, but the fix is damn easy and simply involves removing the exemption the rich currently have.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wonder who benefits from this bs. What's even the goal?

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

For the rich? For corporations? Paying less tax. The rich can afford to retire. They don’t give a damn if you can. Actually, better for them if you can’t since you’ll just be another worker in the labor force up until the moment you drop dead or can’t work anymore and become a homeless elderly person.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 97 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Easiest and fairest way to fix this is to stop exempting high earners and investment income from SS tax.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 44 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Just for those unaware - the social security pay-in is a percentage of your income, but the maximum amount of your income subject to social security withholding is capped at a fixed level that increases annually. The last time I looked, the cutoff was somewhere around $138k. So if your cumulative income for the year hits $138k in, say, June, you are no longer subject to SS withholding and your weekly paycheck goes up by a couple of hundred dollars or so as a result. Most people don’t hit this amount, but enough do that were the cap eliminated, it would increase solvency and possibly allow for an increase in payouts.

On the flip side, your payout from social security is proportional to what your pay in was. It’s still capped, and it’s not really enough to live on. Those who hit the cap typically have multiple other sources of savings for retirement and could easily contribute more to the national program.

[–] highwind84@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] hpca01@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm sorry but this disproportionately affects W2 workers who live in HCOL areas. I've paid into social security since I started working in HS. I'm now a 34 year old, and am expecting nothing during my retirement years as I've been told. Naturally I'm saving up with a 401k and Roth IRA, and you're saying it's okay to drain more from me because I am planning on there being nothing left for me?

I don't agree with that. Why can't we do a wealth tax first and see where we are, why must we hit W2 folks over the head every time.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes, it's ok to take more from you because it's how social security can be offered to everyone, including you.

You say you're putting money away into retirement because you don't think social security will be there. Then you say you don't want to help make social security there for everyone. The whole point is that if millions of people like you were able to add a little more to the bucket, then it would make life better for everyone.

This isn't increasing taxes to start a war, or to bail out billionaires, this is real, tangible benefits to every citizen.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, it disproportionately affects W2 workers making over 140k per year or so. Thats fine. That’s the way things are supposed to be.

It’s not hitting “W2 folks” to extend withholding beyond $140k. It’s doing the appropriate thing and not giving them a free ride. If you want to additionally hit up the people who are living off of the various ways you can monetize wealth, that’s fine too. I’m in favor of a wealth tax. I think that’s also fair. I think Warren proposed a 2% tax on holdings over $4M. I support that. That’s still different than SS withholding.

Let’s say you’re making a whopping $150k. That means that you’ll pay (and I am probably overestimating) a few hundred dollars a year into the SS fund. It’s not a noticeable amount, whether you live in a HCOL area or not. It’s a nice dinner, stretched out over 365 days worth of payments.

It’s a trivial amount of money for an individual, which when spread over the population of the country, can make the difference to the majority of the population. I’m very much down with that.

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The tax cap exists because there is a limit to how much you can get paid out.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes. That is what I said. I think it’s not a valid justification.

By way of analogy, let’s say we move to a point of tuition-free public college, which I also support. My taxes which go to support those colleges would be far higher than those of most people, but my kids, were I to have any, would receive the exact same benefit from a financial standpoint as people whose taxes contributed far less to none.

My property taxes are somewhere around $25k per year. They go largely to support a public school system which, as a person without children, I receive zero direct benefit from. Should I get a lower property tax because I am a person without kids despite having a higher income and higher valued property? Or should I be taxed relative to my ability to support the community? Should a family that makes a quarter of what I do but have four kids pay more than me?

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It seems pretty valid to me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

As one of those high earners, yes. Absolutely. I’d even say do it like Medicare and above a certain income you pay a slightly higher rate that normal too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 74 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.

And who's right? Do your fucking job, Newsweek!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

The media doesn't care about right and wrong anymore. Right and wrong doesn't sell soap as well as giving you something you can agree with or disagree with to fit a certain ideology to keep your eyes glued to their channel or website.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

Yes it should be reformed in the way that the rich should be properly taxed and loopholes like bullshit charities shut down and forced to pay a living wage . I don’t think this is generational so much as classism and late stage capitalism. Im done caring about this stupid generational war between genz at boomers. I’m all about seeing Musk/bezos/Zuckerberg/Chesky cry rather than Mable who worked and paid taxes as a nurse all her life and just needs to retire. Let her. Move on. Let’s stop waxing on about how the boomers had a money fall way back in the 80s cuz it’s no longer the same damage at fucking over the system as these current generations that sucked up the Silicon Valley straw. They are still here. They are still doing the most damage in current day that is directly influencing the lives of the new generations with wage stealing and denying affordable let alone available housing would have direct impact on their social security.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, its billionaires who absolutely hate paying any amount of taxes. But they have no problem bribing anyone to get their way.

We need guillotines.

[–] Moira_Mayhem@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree with the statement though a 4 day general strike would achieve our goals a lot quicker.

All we would need is 1 in 10 people and it would bring the country to its knees.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Wait for the United Auto Workers to line up all their contracts so they end at the same time. Sympathy strikes are illegal in the US because they're too powerful. They're legal in Nordic countries like Sweden and currently being used to wipe the floor with the richest man on Earth.

Hopefully this loophole will stay legal. But the great thing is, it doesn't matter if it's legal if enough people take part. No industry can just fire everyone at once.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One easy way to make social security fund on better footing is to allow more immigrants into this country who will be paying SS taxes.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you change nothing else you will still run out of money in the fund if the population ever starts to stagmate or decline again. It is basically a pyramid scheme. Importing more people is only a short term fix.

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think our country will ever struggle with immigrants wanting to move here

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Run out of money?

You can just make more money, seriously.

All countries can just go into a bigger and bigger debt. It doesn’t matter, money is made up.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] M500@lemmy.ml 29 points 10 months ago

So the generations that have heard all their life that their will not be any social security for them when they get old think it should change and the people currently getting it do not think it should change?

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There just recently was a good episode on citations needed on this kind of fearmongering

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-194-the-graying-population-panic-and-the-90-year-war-on-social-security

[–] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 10 months ago

Came here to post this. Citations Needed completely changed how I view issues like this.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

reframe[s] the conflict between rich and poor as one between young and old

TL;DR

[–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

GenX here, we got mentioned twice - yay? Yeah, we don’t exist…and I think we’re mostly ok with that.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Par for the course, who even wants to exist anyway?

I agree with what others have said though, ultimately there's no war but class war, the haves and the have nots.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Boomers really are the generation of “Got Mine, Fuck You”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Philo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Social Security is not going to run dry.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Our generation is going to have less children, so who’s going to pay into it when you’re too old to work?

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

There are literally people sneaking into this country that would love to pay into SS

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Tl;Dr: 26% of the respondents simply don't know what they're talking about.

Honestly I'm surprised it's that low

[–] Grogon@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Are you guys not happy for them?

[–] leaskovski@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

This same shit gets pulled in the UK... people complain that the state pension won't exist when they retire. Thats just bullshit, with no evidence that something like that will happen, because it would never gets passed in the commons.

load more comments
view more: next ›