TRANSLATION: "Fuck the old, they're going to die anyway."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    Republicans sent a message to senior citizens today with their latest Fiscal Cliff antics.

    Are the Republicans pushing the United States over the Fiscal Cliff on purpose?

    What are your thoughts?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 9:40 PM GMT
    Reality is the retirement age should be raised to 72 and every geezer should be means tested, so someone who does not actually need government assistance, social security, does not get it. Simple enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 9:44 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidReality is the retirement age should be raised to 72 and every geezer should be means tested, so someone who does not actually need government assistance, social security, does not get it. Simple enough.

    Social security is insurance, not welfare. You pay into it. It's not based on need, but eligibility based on age and amount paid into it, like private insurance plans. You are totally off-base and uninformed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 9:58 PM GMT
    JesterJock said
    smartmoney saidReality is the retirement age should be raised to 72 and every geezer should be means tested, so someone who does not actually need government assistance, social security, does not get it. Simple enough.


    Dont tell all of these old people that.
    They are quite pissed and want their money. Granted if there were employment opportunists for them, they would jump at them, but they still want their money.

    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.
    Social security needs to be changed, everyone knows it, but no one wants to really get into it.
    It was not designed for everyone, when it was first put into place average life expectancy was 62, but retirement age was set at 65. Brilliant move. Want to keep the systems alive? Change the retirement age to reflect the fact tha people are living much longer, it's quite simple. 72-75 is probably closer to reality, but keep in mind, you can always retire earlier if you have planned for it on your own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 11:03 PM GMT
    Means testing: I live frugally my entire life. You crap away your life spending every penny you have and then some on every fucking stupid as shit new thing that ever came to market such that I wind up with savings while you wind up without a pot to piss in and now you are going to means test me on whether or not I should get my money back that I paid into the system while I was also saving? Fuck you. How's that for testing my mean.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 11:10 PM GMT
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 11:42 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    Why do you deserve to get back far more than you ever put in while those who put in now will get back far less than what they put in? It's the height of arrogance particularly because it's your generation that also spent all the money as it was coming on social programs and the like instead of ensuring that social security was a funded plan (as opposed to the actual plan that always assumed that the people retiring would always massively be below the number of people working).

    You seem to know so little about social security - and your attitude is one of entitlement. What they giveth they can taketh away - as a liberal and with all your faith in government, I hope they do take it away (even though they won't because it will be a phased approach). It's apt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 1:04 AM GMT
    "Don't touch my social security with risky schemes" was the hysterical war cry in the early 2000s. Nothing like bringing that up again to provoke instant hysteria among the old timers. You'll never have a serious conversation about social security, it was a brilliant design by the leftists of the 30s.
    That said, I agree there should be a means test. I know people with really nice pensions who live like kings with the addition of $2000 and up a month of SS benefit. Can we afford it any longer? The young worker paying for the system is subsidizing comfortable seniors who make more money than the worker! It's backwards! Woe unto us at the end of this pyramid scheme. icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 1:10 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    I believe that the 2013 SS tax rate for wages is 6.2 percent each from employees and employers. Correct me if I got that wrong.

    Let's just play with that a little. Here's some quick and granted inaccurate figuring with just averaging shit out, just to get a ballpark idea of this so-called “entitlement”.

    Say a person has been working from age 18 to age 65, starts off making 15k/year and ends up with 50k/year. just to keep it simple, lets average 30k/year for 47 years. tax on that is 12.4% (employee & employer contribution—with the employer’s contribution obviously a part of the guy’s salary). So the guy is paying into the system about $3,720/year. Say, instead, that person had put that into a tax free municipal bond at 5% compounded for 47 years. That comes to $732,584.67. Now at a 4% withdrawal rate, the retiree might take from that $2441/month to live on, yet the average social security check I think is around 11 or 1200/month.

    For those who want to dismantle Social Security. I think that is a terrible idea. But you are more than welcomed to it; just give me my money back first. How's this for a deal, you don't even have to give me back my principal and the interest owed me. How about just guarantee my payments thoughout my life per our original agreement and then upon my death you can keep the principal moneys and interests accrued.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 1:40 AM GMT
    Social Security is NOT an insurance plan per se.

    It IS a Ponzi scheme by every definition. It's just a 'legal' one set up an run by the US Government.

    "A Ponzi scheme Social Security is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme Social Security System entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going"

    Why do you suppose they crack down so hard on pyramid schemes?

    Like the old saying goes "Don't steal. The government hates competition."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 2:15 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    Why do you deserve to get back far more than you ever put in while those who put in now will get back far less than what they put in? It's the height of arrogance particularly because it's your generation that also spent all the money as it was coming on social programs and the like instead of ensuring that social security was a funded plan (as opposed to the actual plan that always assumed that the people retiring would always massively be below the number of people working).

    You seem to know so little about social security - and your attitude is one of entitlement. What they giveth they can taketh away - as a liberal and with all your faith in government, I hope they do take it away (even though they won't because it will be a phased approach). It's apt.

    You aren't a US citizen, but a foreign anti-US agitator here, Your views regarding anything dealing with the US are worthless, and most of the guys here know it. Please go peddle your propaganda somewhere else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 2:36 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    Why do you deserve to get back far more than you ever put in while those who put in now will get back far less than what they put in? It's the height of arrogance particularly because it's your generation that also spent all the money as it was coming on social programs and the like instead of ensuring that social security was a funded plan (as opposed to the actual plan that always assumed that the people retiring would always massively be below the number of people working).

    You seem to know so little about social security - and your attitude is one of entitlement. What they giveth they can taketh away - as a liberal and with all your faith in government, I hope they do take it away (even though they won't because it will be a phased approach). It's apt.

    You aren't a US citizen, but a foreign anti-US agitator here, Your views regarding anything dealing with the US are worthless, and most of the guys here know it. Please go peddle your propaganda somewhere else.


    But MenInLove and Ex_Mil8 ARE U.S. citizens? Faux selective outrage from the man wearing a woman's wig. Priceless!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 2:42 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidRepublicans sent a message to senior citizens today with their latest Fiscal Cliff antics.


    Yeah, they embraced one of Obama's positions. The horror!

    WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats held a press conference Thursday to denounce a Social Security cut that has been embraced by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in budget negotiations.

    But the Democrats who spoke did not rule out voting for a deal that includes "chained CPI," an alternate measure of inflation that would make Social Security's future cost-of-living adjustments less generous. When asked during the conference by The Huffington Post if they would vote against such a deal, they did not say they would.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/chained-cpi-democrats_n_2339682.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 3:11 AM GMT
    rubio-ss-tweet.jpg
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/30/the-republican-party-in-one-tweet/Today’s Republican Party thinks the key problem America faces is out-of-control entitlement spending. But cutting entitlement spending is unpopular and the GOP’s coalition relies heavily on seniors. And so they don’t want to propose entitlement cuts. If possible, they’d even like to attack President Obama for proposing entitlement cuts. But they also want to see entitlements cut and will refuse to solve the fiscal cliff or raise the debt ceiling unless there are entitlement cuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 12:46 PM GMT
    The retirement age should be raised at least.

    Not for the already-middle aged persons, but for the younger generations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 2:19 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidA plan should be put into effect to eventually raise the age for retirement. People are living longer, although they're languishing with many health issues and chronic conditions. With more people dependent on social security and with more chronic medical concerns than ever, something has to change. Not only are there too many people in retirement but all the medical costs incurred to keep people alive longer is depleting us.

    The country is so deeply in debt, this is a great start, but only a start. We need to get out of the business of war, stop funding welfare programs for big business, like farmers and bankers and start collecting taxes on businesses that hide offshore.
    Raising taxes on every American would be swell, from the rich to the poor would be fair too. The concept that there are people who live here who pay nothing in federal taxes in insane. You want to live here, pay something. Even if you are on welfare, pay something.
    I am with Warren Buffet on MEANS TESTING social security. If retirees do not actually need the social security insurance program, they should not get it. It's an insurance program. I pay a lot of insurance that I hope to never use, car, home, health, but when I am old I do not expect it to all automatically begin to just pay me back either. Social security is a safety net, not a retirement program.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14297

    Dec 31, 2012 2:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    Why do you deserve to get back far more than you ever put in while those who put in now will get back far less than what they put in? It's the height of arrogance particularly because it's your generation that also spent all the money as it was coming on social programs and the like instead of ensuring that social security was a funded plan (as opposed to the actual plan that always assumed that the people retiring would always massively be below the number of people working).

    You seem to know so little about social security - and your attitude is one of entitlement. What they giveth they can taketh away - as a liberal and with all your faith in government, I hope they do take it away (even though they won't because it will be a phased approach). It's apt.
    How the hell do you know about our social security mr. nosy rosie north of the bordericon_question.gif Social Security is an excellent social program that provides American workers insurance for their retirement. We have put a shitload of money into the system so therefore after age 65, we are rightfully entitled to the benefits from it. This is a discussion for Americans only, stay out of it. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    nevz saidThe retirement age should be raised at least.

    Not for the already-middle aged persons, but for the younger generations.

    Oh, definitely.
    icon_lol.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14297

    Dec 31, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    waterloonicetop said
    roadbikeRob said
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    smartmoney said
    That's the problem with the entitlement society of the elderly, plus they vote.

    Why do you keep lying? Social Security is NOT a free entitlement for seniors like welfare or Medicaid. It is INSURANCE into which people have paid all their lives.

    We (I) have paid into it, and deserve to get our money back out of it. WHAT is your problem with that? We are cheating no one, the system has worked for over 70 years.

    And BTW, what is your hardon about the elderly? You should be so lucky to be one some day. WE paid taxes when you were shitting in your diaper, WE paid into Social Security, and now YOU have a problem with our reaping what we invested? Please explain that.


    Why do you deserve to get back far more than you ever put in while those who put in now will get back far less than what they put in? It's the height of arrogance particularly because it's your generation that also spent all the money as it was coming on social programs and the like instead of ensuring that social security was a funded plan (as opposed to the actual plan that always assumed that the people retiring would always massively be below the number of people working).







    You seem to know so little about social security - and your attitude is one of entitlement. What they giveth they can taketh away - as a liberal and with all your faith in government, I hope they do take it away (even though they won't because it will be a phased approach). It's apt.
    How the hell do you know about our social security mr. nosy rosie north of the bordericon_question.gif Social Security is an excellent social program that provides American workers insurance for their retirement. We have put a shitload of money into the system so therefore after age 65, we are rightfully entitled to the benefits from it. This is a discussion for Americans only, stay out of it. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. icon_mad.gif



    Ignorant old american. The same ponzi scheme is in play in the entire G7.

    You didnt pay enough to cover it. You are not going to get your hoped for benefits. All g7 boomers and their parents voted for lower taxes throughout their lives the payments went to the general tax fund to pay for such folly and now they are gone. You are bankrupt and not going to get paid all of it.

    Face the facts. It's gone. You voted badly the entire time. You also didnt retire in time and continue to double dip, and hoard the good paying jobs so gen x cant ever get to where theybshould have been. This fucked the ponzi scheme up in the entire g7.

    Right now it is 2:1 boomers paying into the depression gen. Genx to boomer ratio is 1:2. The difference is 4 times. Boomers bitch and moan supporting the depression gen? Gen x will face four times the cost for your greedy old asses. So you raise taxes to 4 times what they are today so 30% to 120%. Oops error...okay...eliminate costs...oops greedy boomers demanding their ponzi scheme payoffs..oops you got swindled...you gave your payments to your parents the depression gen...the richest generation that the world WILL EVER SEE. Bitch and moan all you want greedy boomer, your PARENTS swindled you, you ARE NOT GONNA GET PAID. Simple bankruptcy math.

    Not only that...you have also laid the groundwork for the end of white (and black) america. To stave off bankruptcy the last ditch attempt will be to flood the country with gen x babies. Oh wait all the white countries have the same problem! No white gen x babies available.hmm..okay maybe some nice non-obnoxious chinese...what same problem there tooo...hmm....what to do...

    Oh crap..all those countries you pissed off with your little blood for oil wars...thats the only source of gen x aged people...oh wait we need 1/4 of the population to flood in to fulfil the greedy boomer "i paid in gimme money" propaganda? Oh well...


    Ok pakistan, afghanistan, iran, iraq, Etc etc. All non-christian background countries. We need 60 million of you between 2020-2025 no possible way around it!


    Oh wait, you eat greener so are healthier, educate your kids better, and breed faster? Oops sorry white boomers xmas is no longer a holiday you lost your majority status forever, and they voted you out.

    Wait why didnt the politicians say this was coming? Oh. They have known since 1975 when gen x numbers just didnt happen because you were all on the pill suddenly? Why didnt they say something? Oh you voted for republicans again and again on the promise of bead and circuses and every man for himself?

    PONZI. SUCKER.


    (oh and with it you sold out gay rights as the muslims flood in. - guess we should start addicting as many of them to cock as possible right now! Middle eastern boys-stubble bubble butts and big cocks. Yummy. )

    FYI Gen Xers are just as greedy as the baby boomers because they voted pretty much the same way in elections for lower taxes. If any generation is going to get fucking shafted, it is the Generation Y and the younger generation that is currently entering either college or the workforce. It is the millennials and the younger ones after them that are going to get nothing out of social security. Gen Xers are doing quite well along with the greedy boomers and both of them will keep blindly voting for conservative republicans unfortunately to keep their taxes low.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 4:06 PM GMT
    Our two countries face similar rhetoric about us nasty old folks, much of it lies, as money for such paid for programs has been too tempting for some governments to keep their hands off of.

    While the red herring of how the boomers are such a huge group, and are draining the programs, here's some facts:

    http://emerson-advisors.com/Strategy/RidingtheGenYWave.aspx

    Now the boomers are just beginning to retire, and taking over are all the gen xers etc and adding to the new massive young demographic entering the workforce,,,,,

    "Gen Y is defined as those born between 1985 and 2010. There are over 110 million of them. That is almost 50% larger than the baby boomers (born 1945 to 1965) and 66% larger than Gen X (born 1965 to 1985). "

    So do the math; the boomers are about 55 million, the gen xers are about the same number as boomers at about 55 million. So while you will likely have about 50 million boomer retirees (I'm being optimistic as boomers are dying like flies on a window sill) you have about 160 million workers/employables. (the average age of genYers is currently 20 according to the article)

    Remember that much of the money boomers handed over to the gov'ts, the gov'ts were able to invest at much higher compounding interest rates than today. The biggest question is what did they do with the money?

    One of our illustrious Conservative Prime Ministers 'borrowed' all of it to balance the budget. Then we had a Liberal one that did the same. Finally he tried to borrow all of the Unemployment Insurance funded by workers and employers and the kaka hit the proverbial fan. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidI am with Warren Buffet on MEANS TESTING social security. If retirees do not actually need the social security insurance program, they should not get it. It's an insurance program. I pay a lot of insurance that I hope to never use, car, home, health, but when I am old I do not expect it to all automatically begin to just pay me back either. Social security is a safety net, not a retirement program.


    Your play with words doesn't change their reality. That Social Security is called an entitlement does not make retired people an entitled population the same way that calling a kid who has not contributed while thinking themselves deserving would be called in today's use of the word entitled.

    As well, I see your convenient list of types of insurance but I'm sure as an oversight--or as propaganda--you left out that Social Security is a type of life insurance which does have cash value to the individual paying those premiums.

    How surprising that a multibillionare has no problem with means testing his own Social Security. That's very brave of him. But what about every one else. Just because someone frivolously spent all their money you are now going to means test they guy who didn't? How about this. How about the saver spend down all their money right before applying for that little means test of yours? Fuck the contract the guy thought he had for 30plus years and that he counted on for his retirement. And what of other retirement systems, such as teachers who don't pay into Social Security but who pay into state run programs instead. While your means testing one, does the other get to keep theirs? That's quite a contentious so-called solution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 4:20 PM GMT

    Lastly,

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/us-usa-babyboomers-life-expectancy-idUSBRE87D0ZT20120814

    and..

    http://wasatchecon.blogspot.ca/2012/07/us-mortality-and-baby-boomers.html

    Now do the math.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 4:54 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Lastly,

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/us-usa-babyboomers-life-expectancy-idUSBRE87D0ZT20120814


    Interesting, but I think you absolutely have to figure on the high side to be safe and possibly even practical, especially with the potential medical advances (telomeres) which could come into being within these diabetic lifetimes

    But I think an even bigger issue--and if not bigger certainly concurrent--is not even the fucking money but the time. My father has been retired for 20 years, in good health still in his 80s. So he might have 30 even 40 years of basically watching television. Ick. You gotta fill in that time with something.

    I think that as life expectancy rises, so must the age of receiving benefits. And they had started that. I won't receive full benefits until age 66.6 instead of 65. And even then, untess we have more immigration to bring in more people working or find another fix, I believe my benefits reduce to 75% when I hit about 85.

    And I'm not even convinced that retirement is a necessary part of life, certainly not for 20, 30, 40 years, whatever. I personally believe this is a blip in history. Work is not a four letter word. We derive a lot more from it than money.

    One of the huge, mostly unspoken problems I see here is that while people are calling for means testing and raising retirement age et al, very few seem to be discussing ageism. Let's assume for a moment that work is a four letter word as it seems so often to be treated. Now if you are going to force a person to work, don't you have supply a job?

    Rock and a hard place. We're now going to means test you so that you can't afford to live the life you planned without continuing to work but we're going to discriminate based upon your age so that you can't work, be promoted, whatever. This is horseshit.

    I believe these discussions inextricable. Any discussion on limiting retirement must include facilitating working.

    http://agingandwork.bc.edu/blog/how-age-bias-hurts-business/
    According to a 2009 survey of workers and job seekers between the ages of 55 and 70, 43 percent of those who were currently seeking work or who had retired because they could not find work said the main problem was “they could not find an employer who would hire someone their age.”
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14297

    Dec 31, 2012 7:27 PM GMT
    meninlove said Our two countries face similar rhetoric about us nasty old folks, much of it lies, as money for such paid for programs has been too tempting for some governments to keep their hands off of.

    While the red herring of how the boomers are such a huge group, and are draining the programs, here's some facts:

    http://emerson-advisors.com/Strategy/RidingtheGenYWave.aspx

    Now the boomers are just beginning to retire, and taking over are all the gen xers etc and adding to the new massive young demographic entering the workforce,,,,,

    "Gen Y is defined as those born between 1985 and 2010. There are over 110 million of them. That is almost 50% larger than the baby boomers (born 1945 to 1965) and 66% larger than Gen X (born 1965 to 1985). "

    So do the math; the boomers are about 55 million, the gen xers are about the same number as boomers at about 55 million. So while you will likely have about 50 million boomer retirees (I'm being optimistic as boomers are dying like flies on a window sill) you have about 160 million workers/employables. (the average age of genYers is currently 20 according to the article)

    Remember that much of the money boomers handed over to the gov'ts, the gov'ts were able to invest at much higher compounding interest rates than today. The biggest question is what did they do with the money?

    One of our illustrious Conservative Prime Ministers 'borrowed' all of it to balance the budget. Then we had a Liberal one that did the same. Finally he tried to borrow all of the Unemployment Insurance funded by workers and employers and the kaka hit the proverbial fan. icon_lol.gif
    Most industrial countries are facing the exact same problems, not just the US and Canada.