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]
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 was WWII. When the war ended, the men came home and lots of babies were born.
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.
C'mon Ivan, if SS hadn't taken that money, you would have blown it all on Nyquil and Near Beer.
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.
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]
Because the birth boom didn't begin until '46?
I think the last person to receive SS will receive more media coverage.
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.)
If you look at the curve here
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:
Separate names with a comma.