Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

graphics.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#111

Post by astral303 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #64
MrZongle2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exceeding the speed limit isn't exclusive to the poor and downtrodden. Should fines for breaking the law be different for different incomes? Edit: for those of you saying 'yes': who decides what is "fair"?

Nah it is pretty much a universal crime. And I actually think it would be correct to fine different people different amounts - say 10 minutes of income for every mile above the limit, up to a max of some percentage (say 20%) over the limit. That way you have the minimum necessary fine to make it not worth speeding without it being so that rich people can speed with impunity.

This is what Finland does. It's called a Day-fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#112

Post by refurb »

tamana wrote: post #84
refurb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all these people who have paid a life's worth of taxes The social security benefits she receives are based off her lifetime earnings and thus the taxes she paid.

That's not true. SS taxes are an entry ticket, but the benefits are paid without regard to any sort of national investment of those twx payments.

They aren't based on off the investment of those contributions, but yes, they are based off the income you earned over your lifetime.[1]

[1]https://www.ssa.gov/retire/estimator.html

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#113

Post by stcredzero »

Bill Staines – A Cowboys Hard Times

    Well, I once was a cowboy, and I used to run wild.
    And I rodeoed, wrangled, and rambled in style.
    But I'm too old for horses, too old for the show,
    And I'm too young for Heaven; now where shall I go?
You young whipper-snappers might think that's quaint. But get ye into the position of manager, guru, or entrepreneur, or this can happen to a coder too.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#114

Post by dpritchett »

maxsilver wrote: post #107
roymurdock wrote: post #48

Here's a breakdown of the US 2015 combined (Federal, State, Local) government spend: Total Spend: 6.18tn Total Revenue: 6.08tn Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%) Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%) Education: 0.93tn (14.8%) Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%) Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%) Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%) *Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pay…

Only $74bn short? That works out to $232/yr each, or an extra $20 per citizen per month. That doesn't sound like all that much to spend to ensure Social Security stays available. I think if you told people "we need to raise revenue through taxes 1.6% to ensure Social Security stays solvent for all working adults", most reasonable people would agree to that. At least, I would hope most people would think that's fairly…

They'll say "I don't trust the government to spend that money properly. Take $232/yr away from some entitlement program that services people who aren't directly related to me."

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#115

Post by 6stringmerc »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #91
6stringmerc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an advocate of "debtors prisons" as a traditional concept, but I'm also very reluctant to sympathize with those living on a fixed income who refuse to pick up and move to an area where the cost of living adequately aligns with their financial means. As in, if a person is old and broke, they should be grateful to have the freedom to move to a cheap place to live, not bemoan that they can no longer afford their…

>> "Might sound cruel, but strangling the youth to feed the elderly, as would be the alternative, doesn't work in the US economic model." It sounds very cruel. There's most certainly a balance we can strike but when politics, particularly in the US, is so two sided balance is hard to find. Picking up the elderly and forcing them to move is pretty drastic. Imagine being 10-20 years from death and having to leave your…

>I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control.

Sigh, this is unfortunately a subject I refuse to go into much detail about, but this view was entirely crafted under the auspices of having an expensive, lifetime handicap. Pre-ACA, I lived constantly under threat of medical bankruptcy and pre-existing condition rules that were written to benefit big companies at the expense of my health. I had to make a lot of compromises, and still do, and I have very little sympathy for those who have lived a long and productive life and will do anything to stay alive, I just don't feel that way personally.

I know I take more out of the health care system than I put in. At least I can admit that. What we're dealing with in the case of the elderly is straight up denial that they could have any responsibility for their station in life now, and I'm not buying it.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#116

Post by toomuchtodo »

dpritchett wrote: post #114
maxsilver wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only $74bn short? That works out to $232/yr each, or an extra $20 per citizen per month. That doesn't sound like all that much to spend to ensure Social Security stays available. I think if you told people "we need to raise revenue through taxes 1.6% to ensure Social Security stays solvent for all working adults", most reasonable people would agree to that. At least, I would hope most people would think that's fairly…

They'll say "I don't trust the government to spend that money properly. Take $232/yr away from some entitlement program that services people who aren't directly related to me."

Is "they" a large enough voting cohort for it to matter?

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#117

Post by duderific »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69
6stringmerc wrote: post #19

> Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000. So now we finally get to the root of why Baby Boomers are so upset with the Millenial generation - there's nobody to bail them out of the mess they created.

Perhaps you should ask the questions: Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? If savings was put aside, what rate of return did it earn? And what remains of those savings? But heh, f___ old people for decisions that were made before you were born, amirite?

> Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside?

Many of them did have enough income to put aside, but chose not to. My father is one of them. He was making 6 figures back in the 1980's when that was a lot of dough, yet he finds himself at 74 still having to work and living essentially paycheck to paycheck. I'm pretty sure he is not the only one like this.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#118

Post by zanny »

6stringmerc wrote: post #63
s_q_b wrote: post #8

Before Social Security, over 70% of seniors died in poverty. Today, that number is less than 10%. The amount of transfer payments to the elderly is so much larger than to any other age group, but unless you're willing to let those below the median income die in abject poverty, it's necessary.

I'm not an advocate of "debtors prisons" as a traditional concept, but I'm also very reluctant to sympathize with those living on a fixed income who refuse to pick up and move to an area where the cost of living adequately aligns with their financial means. As in, if a person is old and broke, they should be grateful to have the freedom to move to a cheap place to live, not bemoan that they can no longer afford their…

You don't have to strangle the youth to feed the elderly. IT is always a false dichotomy to think that you need the poor to provide for the poor.

Here are numbers to consider. Per capita real GDP in 2015 in the US was $51,143. Fourty years ago it was $24,693. We have more than doubled our per-person wealth, and are continuing to increase at 2%, roughly twice the rate of inflation.

We are absolutely wealthy as a country. Beyond measure. At some point, it should be reasonable to say some things about how advanced your society should be now. In the past, there have been many points where people and leaders together agreed we were advanced and prosperous enough to invest in our own country. Just in the US, some examples would be:

* Public education. Spending money to make sure no matter your means you have access to a generalized curriculum of schooling. * Transportation infrastructure. Be it rail, canals, trollies, roads - even the old dirt roads dug out for carriages, airports, subways, bike paths, or sidewalks. * Clean water. * Sewage * Electricity * Twisted pair * Coaxial * Fiber? * Welfare that tries to insure people do not starve, or sleep in the streets. * Prisons to remove from society those who cannot participate (and for some reason people who like smoking plants). * Guaranteed access to healthcare. Oh wait, only first world countries do that.

All of these are expenses, that we pay for in taxes and rationalize as being worth the cost, because our economy can bear the cost. And it has done more than weather these costs, it has exploded even with them upon it, and often because of these expenses - these investments - we are more productive as a result.

Peace of mind in retirement may not be as obviously beneficial to the econonmy as having an interstate highway system, but the benefits now should be apparent in how we can easily see that when children are not burdened to care for their ailing parents they prosper.

So the question is not if the young are suffering for the rich, because social security has existed for going on five generations since the 40s and has had provable economic benefit in the intervening years. It is important to distinguish the benefits of the expense (social security) from the means to pay for it.

This of course ties back into growing wealth inequality, but it is important to separate why it is good to do something and why you might be getting the money to do it the wrong way.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#119

Post by tosseraccount »

maxsilver wrote: post #107
roymurdock wrote: post #48

Here's a breakdown of the US 2015 combined (Federal, State, Local) government spend: Total Spend: 6.18tn Total Revenue: 6.08tn Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%) Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%) Education: 0.93tn (14.8%) Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%) Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%) Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%) *Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pay…

Only $74bn short? That works out to $232/yr each, or an extra $20 per citizen per month. That doesn't sound like all that much to spend to ensure Social Security stays available. I think if you told people "we need to raise revenue through taxes 1.6% to ensure Social Security stays solvent for all working adults", most reasonable people would agree to that. At least, I would hope most people would think that's fairly…

Federal Debt is $59K per person. http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-go...

So that's about $120K per taxpayer.

It takes a long time to pay that kind of debt down on stagnant wages.

It's more than the annual GDP and one of the worst in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...

The right alternative to raising taxes might be to moderate spending and trying to pay down the debt. We need to not leave the kids with a bum debt.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#120

Post by [deleted] »

tosseraccount wrote: post #119
maxsilver wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only $74bn short? That works out to $232/yr each, or an extra $20 per citizen per month. That doesn't sound like all that much to spend to ensure Social Security stays available. I think if you told people "we need to raise revenue through taxes 1.6% to ensure Social Security stays solvent for all working adults", most reasonable people would agree to that. At least, I would hope most people would think that's fairly…

Federal Debt is $59K per person. http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-go... So that's about $120K per taxpayer. It takes a long time to pay that kind of debt down on stagnant wages. It's more than the annual GDP and one of the worst in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de... The right alternative to raising taxes might be to moderate spending and trying to pay d…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN