Thread Closed

The First Baby Boomer Collects Social Security

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Oct15-07, 08:17 PM   #1
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus

The First Baby Boomer Collects Social Security


Kathleen Casey-Kirschling was born New Year's Day 1946, at one second past midnight, making her the first baby of a new generation.

Raised on "Howdy Doody" and hula hoops, she danced on "American Bandstand." Her first husband served in Vietnam. And in later years, she prospered like many of her classmates -- the baby boomers.

...Today, she reached another milestone -- she became the first baby boomer to sign up to receive Social Security payments [continued]
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/LifeSta...3732745&page=1
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
science news on PhysOrg.com

>> Bird's playlist could signal mental strengths and weaknesses
>> Minus environment, patterns still emerge: Computational study tracks E. coli cells' regulatory mechanisms
>> Bacterium uses natural 'thermometer' to trigger diarrheal disease, scientists find
Oct15-07, 10:48 PM   #2
 
social security needs to be eliminated immediately.
Oct16-07, 12:14 AM   #3
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
No problem, but first, please return MY $100,000 or so that I have paid out of pocket.

[not sure of the exact amount but something like that. I will check if you wish to send it directly]
Oct16-07, 04:09 PM   #4
G01
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Homework Helper Homework Help

The First Baby Boomer Collects Social Security


How do they decide when one generation ends and another begins? I know this sounds like a stupid question, but think about it. Why 1946? Are the people born in 1945 so much different that the break in the generations has to be there? This is something that has bothered me for a while. Maybe I think to much about these things.
Oct16-07, 04:10 PM   #5
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
It was WWII. When the war ended, the men came home and lots of babies were born.
Oct16-07, 05:00 PM   #6
 
Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
No problem, but first, please return MY $100,000 or so that I have paid out of pocket.

[not sure of the exact amount but something like that. I will check if you wish to send it directly]



Return $100,000 for what? You have paid $0.00 towards your own social security benefits. SS is a pay as you go system. Your tax dollars only go towards paying for the current retirees.
Oct16-07, 06:11 PM   #7
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
It's not just retirees, SS pays death benefits to survivors (spouse and children) and disability.
Oct16-07, 06:13 PM   #8
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
No problem, but first, please return MY $100,000 or so that I have paid out of pocket.
C'mon Ivan, if SS hadn't taken that money, you would have blown it all on Nyquil and Near Beer.
Oct16-07, 06:29 PM   #9
 
Admin
Quote by G01 View Post
How do they decide when one generation ends and another begins? I know this sounds like a stupid question, but think about it. Why 1946? Are the people born in 1945 so much different that the break in the generations has to be there? This is something that has bothered me for a while. Maybe I think to much about these things.
It's arbitrary. Why not consider the children born in 1945, the year the war ended. I have close friend who was born in Eastern Europe in 1945, which was just after the German forces were pushed out of the area. Her mother found time to get pregnant in the middle of that chaos. She also has an older brother, which means he was born duing the war. My understanding is that both parents were partisans working against the Nazi occupation. There are some amazing stories from back then.
Oct16-07, 06:59 PM   #10
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Quote by gravenewworld View Post
Return $100,000 for what? You have paid $0.00 towards your own social security benefits. SS is a pay as you go system. Your tax dollars only go towards paying for the current retirees.
Okay, in that case I would like a refund since you intend to violate the contract with those who have paid in, in good faith.

Currently I am still paying into SS, but with a little slight of hand with a lawyer, I could easily avoid that.

I received my eligibility notice years ago, so pay, pay, pay. I have a contract! [edit That was supposed to include a smiley]
Oct16-07, 07:02 PM   #11
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Quote by Astronuc View Post
It's arbitrary. Why not consider the children born in 1945,
Because the birth boom didn't begin until '46?
Oct16-07, 07:54 PM   #12
 
I think the last person to receive SS will receive more media coverage.
Oct16-07, 09:39 PM   #13
G01
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Homework Helper Homework Help
Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Because the birth boom didn't begin until '46?
I guess this makes sense. But what about other generations? Why separate the next generation after the baby boomers at the point that it is separated? (Is this a coherent question? Sorry if it doesn't make sense. I'm tired and not necessarily wording anything correctly.)
Oct16-07, 10:59 PM   #14
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
If you look at the curve here
http://ceic.mt.gov/C2000/SF12000/Pyramid/pptab00.htm

We do find a 30% jump in the population by age, going from 54 to 53 [from year 2000 data]
Then again, we find the peak of the curve at age 40, with a dip at about age 34. So just looking at the graph, we do see a distinct bulge over the boomer age group.

wiki says this:
There is some disagreement as to the exact beginning and end dates of the baby boom, but the range most commonly accepted is as starting in 1946 and ending in 1964.[2][3][4] The problem with this definition is that this period may be too long for a cultural generation, even though it covers a time of increased births. If the gross number of births were the indicator, births began to decline from the peak in 1957 (4,300,000), but fluctuated or did not decline by much more than 40,000 (1959-1960) to 60,000 (1962-1963) until a sharp decline from 1964 (4,027,490) to 1965 (3,760,358). This makes 1964 a good year to mark the end of the baby boom in the U.S.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
Thread Closed
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: The First Baby Boomer Collects Social Security
Thread Forum Replies
Social Security Current Events 16
Is Social Security Reform really viable? Current Events 17
The Social Security Timebomb? Current Events 46
Social Security Current Events 15
How Galveston, TX opted out of Social Security.... Current Events 1