ADVERTISEMENT

The Great Wealth Transfer

I’ve had the knees done, but Christ Hospital here has a new program coming on line that allows the bills for new hips and knees to be expressly directed to a specific individual. So, if I need a new hip, we’ve designated you as the recipient of the bill. Kiss that new Lexus goodbye.

This is precisely why they have come out with new technology to remove the need for knee replacements with new technological advances.
 
Nah Marv, that is not my point. I'm not saying Boomers have my money and I'm not suggesting I expect or want theirs.

I'm saying Boomers, by not providing enough wealth dispersion across their generation and/or a properly capitalized social safety net are going to require tax increases on my generation, to help fund the deficit and keep a massive age cohort alive for what I expect to be a renewed high water mark in life expectancy.



It's a fair question. I don't see any specific data on those prior generations (found any?), but we know with certainty that they paid more in taxes per dollar of income than the Baby Boomers who came into their prime during the lowest tax era in history. Given they have paid less in taxes (which I am not necessarily opposed to), you would have expected they would have re-invested some of those savings to become self sufficient, which isn't the case.

On the plus side, Boomers seem to be working longer than others. On the negative side, the prevents others (e.g., Gen X) from rising to positions of power as quickly as they were expecting.

The Boomers spent all their money buying big houses in the burbs to raise their kids in and paying for their college educations. They ended up raising a generation of ungrateful bastards.
 
The Boomers spent all their money buying big houses in the burbs to raise their kids in and paying for their college educations. They ended up raising a generation of ungrateful bastards.

Clearly some of them spend time at the Trailer Park ;)

If they have all of these big houses, they should have enough to supplement retirement account deficits then. Also, I don't disagree - plenty of ungrateful bastards. But, they should have been raised better. Teaching them that McMansions and materiality are good weren't the best traits to pass down.
 
I agree NPT, but in the case of Gen X and younger, there is still time. Boomers can't change the retirement gap now because it is too late, even with accelerated retirement funding.

Now, practically, do I think they will do what they should? Of course not. People just want. They don't want to do, any longer.
Would you have supported (when there was excess SS funds) putting part of the funds into the stock market? Remember when Bush mentioned doing that and the Democrats went ape shit crazy about doing it?
 
Boomers who came into their prime during the lowest tax era in history. Given they have paid less in taxes (which I am not necessarily opposed to), you would have expected they would have re-invested some of those savings to become self sufficient, which isn't the case.
That's a valid point but like I said in a previous post that a lot of people are gonna spend what they make plus some no matter what they make and then cry because they have it tough. Obviously it's not lack of income on the part of the federal government that dug the hole we're in. It's the fact that our government is worse than most people when it comes to controlling what they spend. All they know is spend, spend, spend so they can get elected or re-elected.

cbnJ6rH.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: dr.jb
Nah Marv, that is not my point. I'm not saying Boomers have my money and I'm not suggesting I expect or want theirs.

I'm saying Boomers, by not providing enough wealth dispersion across their generation and/or a properly capitalized social safety net are going to require tax increases on my generation, to help fund the deficit and keep a massive age cohort alive for what I expect to be a renewed high water mark in life expectancy.



It's a fair question. I don't see any specific data on those prior generations (found any?), but we know with certainty that they paid more in taxes per dollar of income than the Baby Boomers who came into their prime during the lowest tax era in history. Given they have paid less in taxes (which I am not necessarily opposed to), you would have expected they would have re-invested some of those savings to become self sufficient, which isn't the case.

On the plus side, Boomers seem to be working longer than others. On the negative side, the prevents others (e.g., Gen X) from rising to positions of power as quickly as they were expecting.

It is interesting, I know I have been in many threads here on our wealth pooling at the top, wealth not being dispersed, but I didn't recall you being on my side. If you think it is a problem, great. That is a problem. Yet it isn't close to all boomers, the top 5% are known as 5% for a reason.

Like other generations, Boomers had a lot of people struggle. When our kids were young we struggled. We never bought new cars, our house was bought outside city limits where it was much cheaper. It was just hard to pay for any childcare in addition to all the normal expenses. A lot of parents are in that boat. I imagine you know the price of childcare, now think about a family making $100,000 (which is still well above median household income).

I agree there is a lot of greed at the top. There was a time investment was more limited, anywhere one invested was almost certain to create jobs. Today there are a ton of investments that create almost no jobs. It is a problem. There is overhead in producing product, no real overhead in Bitcoin. You can get rich and share none of it. The dream of the greedy class.

So I don't doubt there are Boomers that watch It's a Wonderful Life and cheer for Potter. I just think every generation has them.

Now Boomer politicians have largely sucked. I don't know why. But I look at Hawley, Greene, and Ocasio-Cortez, and I certainly don't see improvement.
 
It is interesting, I know I have been in many threads here on our wealth pooling at the top, wealth not being dispersed, but I didn't recall you being on my side. If you think it is a problem, great. That is a problem. Yet it isn't close to all boomers, the top 5% are known as 5% for a reason.

I don't necessarily view that as a problem, except that it was meant to refute the idea that the generation itself is "well off" heading into retirement. Maybe that is or has always been the case, but I'm not suddenly going to be in favor of a wealth tax. You and I have a lot in common as it relates to executive pay and compensation, in particular. We just prefer different solutions (government intervention vs. market shift).

Now Boomer politicians have largely sucked. I don't know why. But I look at Hawley, Greene, and Ocasio-Cortez, and I certainly don't see improvement.

On that I agree and to be fair, I think successful Boomers were the first to say "F it" to the notion that one should run for office because of how nasty campaigning started to get, even a couple decades ago. Now, it's just a shit show.

Why would any intelligent Gen Xer or Millennial want to run these days? You not only have to deal with the personal and family harassment, but also trying to work with people like MTG, AOC, etc.
 
We just prefer different solutions (government intervention vs. market shift).
I am curious, what would you mean by market shift? What would cause it to happen?

Would making serving on multiple boards an antitrust violation work? That seems to offer up the back scratching opportunity.
 
I don't necessarily view that as a problem, except that it was meant to refute the idea that the generation itself is "well off" heading into retirement. Maybe that is or has always been the case, but I'm not suddenly going to be in favor of a wealth tax. You and I have a lot in common as it relates to executive pay and compensation, in particular. We just prefer different solutions (government intervention vs. market shift).



On that I agree and to be fair, I think successful Boomers were the first to say "F it" to the notion that one should run for office because of how nasty campaigning started to get, even a couple decades ago. Now, it's just a shit show.

Why would any intelligent Gen Xer or Millennial want to run these days? You not only have to deal with the personal and family harassment, but also trying to work with people like MTG, AOC, etc.
After a successful stint as Governor Mitch Daniels declined efforts to get him in the Presidential Race. He understood the Leviathan well enough to not want to be involved.
 
After a successful stint as Governor Mitch Daniels declined efforts to get him in the Presidential Race. He understood the Leviathan well enough to not want to be involved.
I think that mostly had to do with personal matters...mainly his crazy wife and nasty divorce.
 
I prefer MB or BMW to Lexus - but that’s just me. But never new.

Normally I agree on the new, but I just went the lease route, got a lower rate, lower payment and will likely refi the residual when it comes due as rates will be lower in 4 years.

By the time I factored in earnings I'll make by investing the difference in my lower payment, it's was a no brainer. New will cost me about $1000 more than the used one, depending on market performance.

One thing I never do is pay cash or put anything down if the finance rate is under 5. I can beat that in the market, after tax.
 
Normally I agree on the new, but I just went the lease route, got a lower rate, lower payment and will likely refi the residual when it comes due as rates will be lower in 4 years.

By the time I factored in earnings I'll make by investing the difference in my lower payment, it's was a no brainer. New will cost me about $1000 more than the used one, depending on market performance.

One thing I never do is pay cash or put anything down if the finance rate is under 5. I can beat that in the market, after tax.
if you drive low miles etc lease isn't a bad way to go. cheap monthly and you're always driving a "new" car. the 6,000 lb deduction for land rovers etc is still the best way to go imo, at least before joe biden got elected
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
if you drive low miles etc lease isn't a bad way to go. cheap monthly and you're always driving a "new" car. the 6,000 lb deduction for land rovers etc is still the best way to go imo, at least before joe biden got elected

Yeah, really works out well if you plan to buy the car like I am. I picked a 4 yr lease with 7500 miles. I'll blow through that but so what if I am buying. The residual is slightly higher but I can offset it with market returns over the next 4 years. Now if Biden get re-elected, then I gotta throw out my numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Normally I agree on the new, but I just went the lease route, got a lower rate, lower payment and will likely refi the residual when it comes due as rates will be lower in 4 years.

By the time I factored in earnings I'll make by investing the difference in my lower payment, it's was a no brainer. New will cost me about $1000 more than the used one, depending on market performance.

One thing I never do is pay cash or put anything down if the finance rate is under 5. I can beat that in the market, after tax.
Is below 5 realistic today?
 
That cheap lease rate is made up for with up front costs and little to no discount on the price of the car.

Paid no up front costs and negotiated a lower residual upon lease completion. And, I'm not buying a Chevy Spark for goodness sake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I’m not seeing this. If this were true I’d see all these single hot 30-34 chicks out there that I could try and get. They are as elusive as Bigfoot
The result of worship of the false god of material wealth is hollow,'angry' people with no connection to family, history and varied communities.
Today's trending popular culture of permissive progressivism has created too many of these disconnected men and women.
Look at the published photos of the Antifa arrested in Portland.
Those people, for the most part are in the age groups described in the video.
Ignorance>propaganda >entitlement....
Truly a toxic brew.
 
Great listen. It's short but extremely accurate.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

Instead of putting in their 30 plus years and honing their craft and expertise, they are listening to eggheads like this and throwing up their hands.

Meanwhile, the people who actually raise a family and stick to traditional family values are going to have opportunities out the ying-yang because self-absorbed Iveys will contually be more interested in colonialism.
 
Sorry, but that's bullshit.

Instead of putting in their 30 plus years and honing their craft and expertise, they are listening to eggheads like this and throwing up their hands.

Meanwhile, the people who actually raise a family and stick to traditional family values are going to have opportunities out the ying-yang because self-absorbed Iveys will contually be more interested in colonialism.
The boomers were born into the greatest economic boom possibly in the history of civilization. You folks had opportunities the younger generation will never have. My dad came from absolutely nothing and literally paid his paid through 4 years of ISU bagging groceries for 15-20 hours a week. That probably wouldn't pay for your books these days.
 
The boomers were born into the greatest economic boom possibly in the history of civilization. You folks had opportunities the younger generation will never have. My dad came from absolutely nothing and literally paid his paid through 4 years of ISU bagging groceries for 15-20 hours a week. That probably wouldn't pay for your books these days.
lmao You guys would shit your pants at 10% unemployment, 10% inflation, and 15% interest rates.

'greatest economic boom' my ass. You need to look at actual history, instead of looking at how people live today.

And I guarantee your dad didn't pay his own way through school by bagging groceries at 15-20 hours per week. If he had scholarships, great, but you couldn't pay for shit at 20 hours of a minimum wage job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Would you have supported (when there was excess SS funds) putting part of the funds into the stock market? Remember when Bush mentioned doing that and the Democrats went ape shit crazy about doing it?
Before agreeing with your proposal (to put SS funds into the stock market), I'd like to see the stats on:

(1) what percentage of eligible workers even contributed the minimum to their employers' 401(k) plan and/or anything at all to their own personal IRA, and

(2) what percentage of eligible workers contributed the maximum to their employers' 401(k) plan and/or their own personal IRA.

Personal responsibility must enter into this somewhere. I know an early 30's woman who withdrew all of her 401(k) to buy an average two-bedroom home, just because a girlfriend of hers bought a house and she wanted to keep up. She ended up with a house no better than the previous house she was renting. Now, she has lost a chunk of her retirement savings with no real improvement in lifestyle.

So, knowing that the stock market has major corrections every 5-8 years that casual investors don't expect or understand, I don't automatically think SS should invest in the stock market (which inevitably will generate drastic reductions in the value of individual SS accounts every 5-8 years which in turn will generate political complaints by unsophisticated account holders that didn't pay attention to their high balances during the good parts of the cycle).
 
A
After a successful stint as Governor Mitch Daniels declined efforts to get him in the Presidential Race. He understood the Leviathan well enough to not want to be involved.
Actually, Daniels understood the "Leviathan" well enough to know he had not even a snowball's chance to win the election he drooled at winning. So, he went to Purdue and became President that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
And I guarantee your dad didn't pay his own way through school by bagging groceries at 15-20 hours per week. If he had scholarships, great, but you couldn't pay for shit at 20 hours of a minimum wage job.
When I was growing up I worked many days for 50 cents/hour. When I left home the most I had ever made was $1/hour. Got a job and was making $425/month.... thought I was rich. :) Also, I started working in 1969 and saving and it was probably in the 80s before the stock market got back to where it was when I started (I haven't checked---going by memory). Looking back that was probably a good thing since my savings was buying more shares of stocks but I sure didn't think it was good at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I’m not seeing this. If this were true I’d see all these single hot 30-34 chicks out there that I could try and get. They are as elusive as Bigfoot
Don't show them your soccer knees with all those surgery scars.

Show the your bank statements instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Before agreeing with your proposal (to put SS funds into the stock market), I'd like to see the stats on:

(1) what percentage of eligible workers even contributed the minimum to their employers' 401(k) plan and/or anything at all to their own personal IRA, and

(2) what percentage of eligible workers contributed the maximum to their employers' 401(k) plan and/or their own personal IRA.

Personal responsibility must enter into this somewhere. I know an early 30's woman who withdrew all of her 401(k) to buy an average two-bedroom home, just because a girlfriend of hers bought a house and she wanted to keep up. She ended up with a house no better than the previous house she was renting. Now, she has lost a chunk of her retirement savings with no real improvement in lifestyle.

So, knowing that the stock market has major corrections every 5-8 years that casual investors don't expect or understand, I don't automatically think SS should invest in the stock market (which inevitably will generate drastic reductions in the value of individual SS accounts every 5-8 years which in turn will generate political complaints by unsophisticated account holders that didn't pay attention to their high balances during the good parts of the cycle).
Oh I know... at least SS is forced savings so putting part into the stock market would have been a good move looking back at it. Of course who knows what the future holds. You're correct about savings.... where I worked they guaranteed you a 50cents match for each dollar you contributed (up to 6% of your salary) but matched dollar per dollar most years. However I knew a lot of people that didn't take advantage of that. It was easy to see if you had started saving the 6% when I started working that 30 years later you would have been a millionaire.
 
The boomers were born into the greatest economic boom possibly in the history of civilization. You folks had opportunities the younger generation will never have. My dad came from absolutely nothing and literally paid his paid through 4 years of ISU bagging groceries for 15-20 hours a week. That probably wouldn't pay for your books these days.
There's some truth in that.

But the post-war generation grew up in an economy in which the following were basically bankrupt: Germany, England, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and probably/possibly China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Balkans.

The USA was the only game in town.

There were actually recessions during the 1950s. So, it wasn't just a question of an economic "boom." But now the rest of the world has caught up. Cars, for example, now come from Japan, Europe, Korea and elsewhere, not just the US. It's much harder to have a booming national economy now because of the international competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
A

Actually, Daniels understood the "Leviathan" well enough to know he had not even a snowball's chance to win the election he drooled at winning.
You say that as though it is a fact. However that is about the same thing I said about Trump when the started running so I don't buy your statement. People amaze/confuse me all the time in what they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Oh I know... at least SS is forced savings so putting part into the stock market would have been a good move looking back at it. Of course who knows what the future holds. You're correct about savings.... where I worked they guaranteed you a 50cents match for each dollar you contributed (up to 6% of your salary) but matched dollar per dollar most years. However I knew a lot of people that didn't take advantage of that. It was easy to see if you had started saving the 6% when I started working that 30 years later you would have been a millionaire.

My work does a half match up to I believe 4%, and then we can go up to a total of 8%.

I think there's like 6 of us in the whole company (there's like 25-30 employees) that is taking advantage of it.
 
When I was growing up I worked many days for 50 cents/hour. When I left home the most I had ever made was $1/hour. Got a job and was making $425/month.... thought I was rich. :) Also, I started working in 1969 and saving and it was probably in the 80s before the stock market got back to where it was when I started (I haven't checked---going by memory). Looking back that was probably a good thing since my savings was buying more shares of stocks but I sure didn't think it was good at the time.
I took any job I could find. I was a paperboy in the 60s and made enough money to have a jingle in my pocket, but not much more. I detassled corn in high school (and as a college summer job) and made 90 cents an hour, plus a dime per hour bonus if I finished out the season.

I joined the Army, partly to get the GI Bill, but it didn't nearly cover all my college costs, but less living expenses. I was always scrambling for money.

I'm embarrassed to say I made $500/month in my first job out of IU, because no one was hiring Econ/History majors. It wasn't until I went to grad school, got married, became a grad assistant (which covered tuition plus a princely sum of $150/mo) and had another part time job, did I feel like I wasn't looking for change in the car and the couch.

And my first mortgage was 15% WITH a VA guaranteed loan - many mortgages were 18%.

I just laugh when people talk about how easy Boomers had it.
 
I’m not seeing this. If this were true I’d see all these single hot 30-34 chicks out there that I could try and get. They are as elusive as Bigfoot

They don’t go out. The good ones are taken, the crazy ones are depressed and the rest are in ESTL or butch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT