The First Baby Boomer Collects Social Security

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Security
AI Thread Summary
Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, born on January 1, 1946, is recognized as the first baby boomer and recently became the first of her generation to sign up for Social Security payments. The discussion highlights the arbitrary nature of defining generational boundaries, particularly questioning why 1946 marks the start of the baby boomer generation. Some participants argue that the significant population increase post-World War II justifies this date, while others suggest that births in 1945 should also be considered due to the war's end. The conversation also touches on Social Security's structure, emphasizing that it operates on a pay-as-you-go system, meaning current workers fund retirees rather than drawing from their own contributions. This has led to debates about the fairness of the system and calls for refunds based on perceived contractual obligations. The discussion reflects broader concerns about generational definitions and the implications of Social Security policies.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,530
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/LifeStages/story?id=3732745&page=1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
social security needs to be eliminated immediately.
 
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]
 
Last edited:
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.:rolleyes:
 
It was WWII. When the war ended, the men came home and lots of babies were born.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
It's not just retirees, SS pays death benefits to survivors (spouse and children) and disability.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
G01 said:
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.:rolleyes:
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.
 
  • #10
gravenewworld said:
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:biggrin: That was supposed to include a smiley]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Astronuc said:
It's arbitrary. Why not consider the children born in 1945,

Because the birth boom didn't begin until '46?
 
  • #12
I think the last person to receive SS will receive more media coverage.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
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.)
 
  • #14
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top