Fun fact, the guy who posted that (Caleb Hammer) is a YouTuber that allegedly hired actors to pretend to be broke people making bad financial decisions to get money off selling you a budgeting course when real people weren’t shocking enough for the audience, and also allegedly pressured a guy into doing OnlyFans after touching him inappropriately. Fun! /s
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beware-austin-based-creator-caleb-hammer-victor-vulcano-bjzaf
Common Caleb L.
Social security does need reform. There’s no reason we should cap contributions. We also need more nuance by ability and type of work one does when we determine retirement ages.
If you’re 90 and that selfish, you shouldn’t have made it to 90.
We sure do live in a society… why are boomers/silentgen like this?
Their parents didn’t hit them hard enough.
I love paying for schools, because I hate being surrounded by dumb people.
Jokes on you, I pay for schools and am still surrounded by dumb people!
How unbearable would it be if they received no education, I can’t imagine.
The underfunding or undercutting of education is a big part of why we’re in the current situation
God I hate boomers
Not that I disagree, but 90 would be silent generation.
The rich and powerful are making us hate each other to distract us of the real problems of the world
while that is true, it is also true that a majority of boomers I know are worth this feeling of contempt and loathing
Yes, but boomers are a chunk of the reason that the rich and powerful continue to be able to grasp and maintain power.
If boomers ceased to exist tomorrow and elections were held, I think there’d be a good swing left. Not a total swing, but substantial.
The machine would stop having elections at that point, or just come up with more convolutions to try and undermine the sentiments within the movement of any emerging “public consciousness”.
The revolution Must Not be Televised (or on the internet, lol)
Good thing it won’t be too long until it’s over.
Disagree, the machine is 99% boomers to begin with. It would cease to exist.
I wouldn’t put money on it (especially since that technology is precisely what has gotten us into such catastrophes as for example all the oil cartels buying government influence around the world, wanting to continuously gain access to more of natures most profitable industrial raw material, despite all of us now recognizing what it would mean to actually burn all of it, and how, generally, the creation and use of better ways of capturing energy and byproducts from oil refineries, is not worth the tradeoff of letting robber barons around the now-more-global-than-ever world’s economy own nearly the whole of the worlds reserves of various resources through private claims made to vast scales of area of the globe is not, and will not likely ever end up being, a valuable or productive enough use case for those landscapes, and that the systems of measure we have been using to determine compensation, resource pricing, and measuring+recording debts have all contained various major design flaws which had not been established with enough guard rails in place [or maybe one could argue that no such single use currency could have enough guard rails, so perhaps upwards of 3 or 4 might be required] to be able to protect innocent lives throughout nature which have all each found their niche by carefully and patiently adapting a resilience to survive and thrive another day, despite constantly changing adversity throughout their environments.)
Boomers are only 28% of the US voting population. Try again.
They’re way fucking more than 28% of the fucking politicians dipshit.
No need for the unnecessary hostility. It’s obvious that plenty of young people are voting for your rich politicians too. US politicians can’t win with only 28% of the vote. And US elderly make up a substantial portion of those below the poverty line, and they don’t all vote alike anyway.
boomers are a chunk of the reason that the rich and powerful continue to be able to grasp and maintain power.
Boomers are only 28% of the US voters. Explain why their chunk is more responsible and the younger 72%.
I hate them too but boomers can fuck off as well. Logan’s run was onto something.
opinion: individualism is a plague and the generational war is a distraction
Yep, the real war is the class war and the billionaires are winning.
Amen, brother. No war but the class war.
Jesus Christ you said the exact words I was going to. Am I robot?
Na brother, we’re all just equally burnt out from this capitalist hellscape the billionaires created, and with a collapsing global ecology, we want justice for the future that has been stripped away from us and our children.
It’s a common mantra.
Exactly. Class is the biggest thing that divides us, the rest is a distraction.
Most billionaires are also boomers. The class war and the war against gerontocracy are one and the same.
Musk is Gen X, Suckerberg is a Millenial, Luckey is a Zoomer, etc. etc.
Money generally takes some time to acquire, so many ultra rich will skew towards older demographics by volume. As Boomers die, it will be mostly Millennial billionaires as we’re the biggest age demographic alive now.
There are shitty people in every generation.
Neither of those are billionaires.
Gerontocracy is fundamentally an issue of the few holding more than their fair share of wealth and power at the expense of others and pulling the ladder up behind them. It is a class issue same as everything else.
We’ve got Sam Altman and Taylor Swift in the millennial category off the top of my head. Elon Musk is Gen x, not a boomer. So boomers have Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia at the moment, but soon they’ll go to gen X and the problems will perpetuate. Oh, Googles Ceo is Gen X as well
Yes, and once boomers start dropping dead, gen Xers will be fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their slice of the state pension ponzi at the cost of everyone below them on the ladder the same as boomers did. That does not change my point at all.
There is no fair and equitable world in which state pensions can continue working the way they work now. The system was built on the expectation of infinite growth with every generation being larger than the last.
Yeah, if we saw something like an unavoidable 25% tax on all wealth over $300 million, we would see around $2.5 trillion in taxes that could be distributed as a universal base income that would place $17,857 per average household (2.5) in the U.S.
If we actually combated housing prices, that could potentially cover housing everyone in the U.S. from that alone, then retirements would only need to cover food costs. There are a lot of changes that would need to be made, they just won’t come until the last second when people are dying in large enough numbers to make people do something.
There can be more than one issue, of which both of these are a problem.
The boomers and the rediculously wealthy have the same mindset: fuck you, I’ve got mine
It’s a myth that all the boomers got theirs. Don’t get me wrong, our deal is absolutely worse, but the rich have been fucking people for profit as long as there’s been rich people.
opinion: individualism is a plague and the generational war is a distraction
people should be able to have their own sense of choice and identity.
people should also realise that together we can make it so that everyone can reach their full potential, making society better.
pay your fucking taxes
We can’t, because there is always a percent of people, a large percent, for whom suffering is the point.
We can’t, but something else can, and something more civilized will displace us.
Our evil dies with us.
I love taxes, I would gladly pay even more taxes if that meant everyone would be provided for.
Except at the moment our taxes here in Belgium are already quite high, and our tax system is a complete cluster fuck with plenty of loopholes for the strongest shoulders to not have to carry their weight. Some part of that is even fraudulent, and they’re trying to get a law through right now to find those cases of fraud more efficiently… But it is being opposed by parts of the govt with privacy as the excuse (which I’d normally agree with, except what they’re trying to change is not that egregious afaik and the ratio of found vs investigated fraud is insane)
I wasn’t calling out your tax Stance, more of a general statement to go with the “pro individualism” statement I have.
I wasn’t calling you out at all just going on a bit of a tangent :)
I attended a very rural school district and in 7th grade a bunch of retired people got their friends to elect them to the school board and at their first meeting they closed my school.
But hey, it’s OK. They’re all dead now.
I love a happy ending.
Voting needs a max age cap, and it needs to be lowered to 15-16 imo.
Should be 21-28 years only.
Nah, people 30-60 could reasonably expect 20-40 years of life left. That’s a long time to be disenfranchised.
Likewise 21 is a weird American number for adulthood, so I’m certainly not in favour of raising the minimum to such an age.
So many people don’t understand why we live in a society, and apparently have no capacity for empathy.
They’re free to go live in the wilderness, with no roads, no fire department, no water or electricity, no services whatever, and find out how much they’re actually benefiting from our collective.
They won’t, because though they like to complain, they’re pussies who can’t be bothered to think for 5 minutes that the fact they can read and write their snarky bullshit is because they benefitted from free education, else they’d be illiterate.
But gods forbid they pay back the overwhelming amount they benefit from society in a small way. It’s fucking infuriating.
As someone who works on private wells and water systems, its always baffling to me when someone with a “hunt camp” more luxurious than any house I’ll ever afford is complaining about the cost of our services. Like dude your “camp” is 2000 sqft and 200 kms from the nearest city. Yea its gonna cost a bit to make your well water clean, clear, and safe to drink while running on a solar system.
They’ll even start to question my wage and why the bill costs so much (as if i have any say) completely tone death to the struggles of people outside their class. They imply if i was paid less their bill would be much cheaper despite me barely making enough to own my own tiny home and my wages really aren’t a major cost on the bill.
You know the Mongols did this thing where they poisoned wells.
if you guys don’t have much competition, you should start treating those customers fairly
and by fairly I mean treat them how they treat you
Sounds like you need to raise your rate. And also not break out your wage from the other costs in the invoice.
They’re free to go live in the wilderness, with no roads, no fire department, no water or electricity, no services whatever, and find out how much they’re actually benefiting from our collective.
That’s the neat part. They do try, repeatedly, and it always fails. A classic one is Grafton. It’s also known as A Libertarian Walks into a Bear because their little paradise got overrun by aggressive bears. Lack of public services will do that.
we live in a society, while rich people live in an economy
You are not free to do any of those things as the land is owned and you would be squatting. These people are removed by force. There is no choice except engage with society as there are no other options.
You’d have to buy your own land, of course.
But you could buy a tiny plot in the middle of nowhere, not hook up any utilities or have roads, and just live off your land if you wanted.
There are small parcels in the middle of noplace that nobody wants because there are no roads, utilities, or other services.
Small parcels? Australia and many other places are pretty much empty. And yes, nobody wants to be there for a reason.
Yeah, but ‘nobody wants to be there for a reason’ is my whole point.
It will absolutely suck for you. That’s why civilisation is better, and also why we have to make some concessions to be in a society.
There’s no utopia where everything is perfect. There never was.
If you want societal amenities, you have to pay for them in some small way, and if you don’t, your life will be very hard. Those have always been the choices.
I know. I just wanted to point out that the are huge swaths of land that are empty, not buy tiny patches.
But you could buy a tiny plot in the middle of nowhere, not hook up any utilities or have roads, and just live off your land if you wanted.
Not legally mate.
You literally can do that.
Why do people seem to think this is impossible?
What’s changed? Some parts of that life are sometimes illegal, but most people haven’t been against it like this.
What’s different?
For one there’s zoning laws, most property do not allow any construction, so you’re fucked for shelter. Likewise if you’re on agriculutrally zoned land as most of those large rural parcel are you are legally required to use it for commercial farming. You can’t just go and fell trees or hunt animals, so you’ll be fucked for food. Most councils do not allow new constructions that don’t meet rigid standards such as requirements for plumbing, so no more out-houses. You’re often not allowed to stay on many properties for extended periods of time (i.e. more than a few weeks or month). And if the council ever finds or hears of you living in such a place, they’ll send the police for you
Linking to a few mansions in the bush isn’t the same thing as being able to just go fuck off to woop-woop for the rest of your days.
Well, yeah. Regulations are a major part of society, and a major reason we tend to come together. Yet another reason libertarianism is misguided.
Regulations can be good, they can also be bad.
Such as regulations demanding housing meets a certain area size or standard plumping system means we are not allowed to live in affordable tiny homes with composting toilets.
They’re free to go live in the wilderness, with no roads, no fire department, no water or electricity, no services whatever, and find out how much they’re actually benefiting from our collective.
Where?
This is what I want to do, but I can’t afford to buy land on which to do it (and not just any land is useful for this either, it needs to be capable of supporting people before you can count it). Land enough to support a small homestead isn’t cheap, and zoning/local laws often restricts what you can do on it. So for example you may buy land, but not be allowed to drill a well, even if you have the means and knowledge to do so. Or if you buy land you can afford, you may not be allowed to build a permanent structure on it at all.
You’ll get kicked out (and possibly fined) of both state and national parks in the US if they find you “permanently camping”, which they are likely to do since there are frequently people out there. The only other option is squatting on private property. If you get caught before whatever time passes for squatters laws to take effect, you lose everything you’ve built up.
I mean don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind paying for things I’ll never use because it makes society as a whole better. All I’m saying is opting out of living in a society is nearly impossible for most people even if they are ok with not having all the stuff society funds like roads and fire control.
Search off-grid properties. They exist.
For the downvoters, here are some in the US:
https://www.landsearch.com/off-grid/united-states
Plenty of gorgeous listings.
And in Australia:
https://www.realestate.com.au/news/for-sale-australias-best-offgrid-properties/
Some very beautiful places, and also some very cheap.
Or Iceland:
https://www.bluehomes.com/buy-secluded-Iceland/ISL/10AL/AL/en/theme3.html
Or Siberia?
Off grid in Australia is a joke.
You’re still located within a council who have bullshit laws and won’t even allow you live in a tiny home on your land because it’s not up to code that only allows for McMansions.
People aren’t down voting because they don’t think the properties exist, they’re down voting because your argument doesn’t really make sense. People that are saying, “I’d rather just live in the wilderness” are not the ones that can afford to just purchase land. You almost will certainly have to pay taxes on the land as well.
Saying you can not participate in society by participating in society very hard so you can afford to participate a little less and a little further from society isn’t what these people are looking for, they want to hop in a truck with some tools, drive into the woods, never to be seen again. Without a million dollar piece of paper saying they’re allowed to.
Well yeah, I get that. But there are plots for really cheap, but they don’t have any kind of access to water, sewage, or whatever. Plots for like 10,000 or less. That sounds like a lot, I suppose, but it isn’t. I think it’s more that people don’t understand how money works,
Yes I know, I’ve looked at them. That’s how I know they are quite expensive.
But you never have to pay for utilities, rent, taxes for schools or roads or services … obviously it wouldn’t be completely free to purchase the land.
Ok, but if your plan is to live solo forever and not interact with society, you’d basically need to pay for it upfront. That means you need a lot of money all at once, otherwise you’ll still need income, which limits the ability you have to be separate from society.
Yes, that would need to be the plan. One upfront payment then never paying for utilities or other things forever. That’s the only way this works. You don’t need income, because you live on rabbits and fish and your garden. If your house burns, you put it out with buckets from your stream. You build your house yourself by cutting down trees.
If you get sick, you either die or you don’t.
I think this is madness, but that’s how you do this.
Right, and you get why this is impossible for most people? That was my original point. Most people, even if they want to do this, can’t. It’s unaffordable.
The point is that your suggestion that someone is free to do this is just very much not the case.
It’s almost as if we all rely on each other to exist. If only there was a word for that.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit”
Yes, of course you are. That’s why taxes are mandatory and you go to jail if you don’t pay.
90 and not happy paying taxes? Save us all some trouble and move on to the graveyard
Social security is the kind of thing that everyone should be glad to pay, and crosses their fingers they’ll never need it.
I’d rather have a part of my income goes there and have the ability to bounce back if life gives me lemons, instead of ending up in a bottomless spiral of poverty I have no hope to get out of.
This guy is not actually saying he doesn’t want to pay into social security he is pointing out how dumb of an argument it is “I don’t use it therefore I shouldn’t have to pay into it”. Although even if he is complaining about it it’s valid because until now it’s been something that you could pretty much count on for getting after you retire. But now for my generation we are probably all fucked
I am happy to pay it so long as I have any sort of expectation that I will see a return from it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to working Americans that we will never see a dollar back out of the Social Security program when it comes time for us to need it.
Current boomers have paid for 100% of their Social Security pension from payroll deductions from their working years. Social Security pensions are not dependent on young taxpayers. It hurts to see Lemmy becoming a source of youngster misinformation like Reddit. Lemmy needs to delete this miseducational and divisive thread.
*specifically boomers between years 1946 and 1964, which have actually paid more than they’ll get in benefits.
The others are still taking more than they contributed. It’s fair to say that some current boomers have paid for their Social Security, but many others have not, and the situation isn’t getting any better.
To put it simply, there are just fewer workers paying in to the system than there are people taking money out, and that number only grows as people get older.
This means only about 80% of existing benefit rates are expected to be paid to people when they retire later, and many of those benefiting from existing rates are already taking more from current generations than they paid in.
I don’t think we should universally hate boomers just because the economic situation they were in happened to favor them in some ways, after all, I want my grandma to keep being able to afford her retirement care right now before she dies, but it’s also just not true to say that all current boomers have paid for their social security in its entirety.
Only some of them have, and with the way things are going, it’s not looking like we’ll be any better as we grow older, as rates will have to decline just to prevent draining the entire fund, while people continue to pay the same % of their income into the system.
That’s not how Social Security works. The money the Boomers paid into the system went to paying benefits for the previous generations. The benefits the Boomers (at least the ones that have retired) are getting now is being paid by the workers in the younger generations. While it’s true the program has run a surplus, if the young taxpayers stopped paying into the system that surplus wouldn’t last very long.
The money the Boomers paid into the system went to paying benefits for the previous generations.
False. The pension is fully vested by the workers receiving the pension, based on the taxes that they contributed. In fact, many elderly would be better off if the amount they contributed were invested in a hedge fund instead of Social Security.
That’s exactly how it works, well other than me having the dates off as the Boomers weren’t even born when Social Security was enacted by FDR. When Social Security was enacted, retirees started receiving benefits even if they never paid into the system, which was paid for by the current workers who were paying into the system. It’s been like that ever since. Social Security is also not a pension.
You are correct that for most people would be better off investing their Social Security taxes into a hedge fund but workers don’t really have a choice in the matter.
Okay, we’re still paying money into social security that we will never receive, so the anger won’t just go away
we’re still paying money into social security that we will never receive
You don’t know that you won’t receive Social Security. That’s just pointless scaremongering. In any case, vote for legislators who will manage Social Security better instead of blaming everything on boomers.
There will never be another general election in the United States.
Now that’s misinformation. They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.
They could not afford to survive off only what they put in.
That’s why many senior citizens live below the poverty line.
That’s a really dumb argument. A person complains about paying for something that they’ll never get, and the IndyStar’s response is to complain about paying for something that they’ve already benefited from, and that was paid for by others. I would further add, paying for schools is a great thing even if you don’t have and will never have kids. Without good schools, everyone else’s kids will probably grow up to be conservatives or editors at the IndyStar.
Twitters UI sucks, indystars statement came first, then the outer comment.
Ah, oops. I should pay closer attention. I’ll leave the post and take my beatings.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lol, 19 day old account with only 4 comments saying “test,” idk what kind of bot you’re going to turn into but it’s an instant block for me
Naming the account “sysadmin” is another massive red flag.
Random interjection bot.
