Yea the idea is the people with debt forgiveness still pay into social security but they don’t collect any social security or something like that. One generation is funding the others social security the other is finding ones college tuition. Just an idea

Either way the trend is more likely total write off of student debt like it or not, at least this way there’s some kind of trade off?

Would that even last? Or will the day come that the irresponsible people that opted for that are now old and broke and we have to “figure out how to pay for them”,  again.

Perhaps I think something like this would only work with some kind of phase out plan for social security. At some point there’s going to be a generation that pays in and gets nothing back. If we go ahead and say ok this generation is in trouble with the loan bubble let’s start the phase out now and then start letting younger generations privatize their retirement.

---

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

Well that’s kinda the point they’re not gonna get social security so exchange that for the debt. They’re going to have to pay into it otherwise the current generation would be without coverage but they probably won’t see a dime of it.

---

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

As long as it's around for me when I'm ready, that's all I care about.. I put almost 30 years worth of my taxes for it..

---

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

As long as it's around for me when I'm ready, that's all I care about.. I put almost 30 years worth of my taxes for it..

Yep. You can bet your butt I will start taking it the day its available. They try to sweeten the pot and tease you by showing you how much more you could have if you just hold out a few more years. Take it when it's available. Tomorrow is not promised!

---

If I recall correctly, there was a proposal in the George W. Bush administration to do away with SS and instead put those funds confiscated earnings from tax payers into an interest bearing account that could be invested.  The account would also have the ability to be passed down to heirs of an estate.  It was shot down because it would "benefit the rich".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

If I recall correctly, there was a proposal in the George W. Bush administration to do away with SS and instead put those funds confiscated earnings from tax payers into an interest bearing account that could be invested.  The account would also have the ability to be passed down to heirs of an estate.  It was shot down because it would "benefit the rich".

I think it was shot down because if you let people stop paying in, you accelerate the date when the fund is out of money and cannot pay out any more.  We have to have young people paying in so we can pay out to the old people.  Yes, it looks like (is?) a Ponzi scheme.  That's why you can't let people stop paying in.

---

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

They will never do away with Social Security, because seniors vote in greater numbers than any other group, and there are more and more seniors every year.

---

If I recall correctly, there was a proposal in the George W. Bush administration to do away with SS and instead put those funds confiscated earnings from tax payers into an interest bearing account that could be invested.  The account would also have the ability to be passed down to heirs of an estate.  It was shot down because it would "benefit the rich".

I think it was shot down because if you let people stop paying in, you accelerate the date when the fund is out of money and cannot pay out any more.  We have to have young people paying in so we can pay out to the old people.  Yes, it looks like (is?) a Ponzi scheme.  That's why you can't let people stop paying in.

---

You guys are great, acting like anyone will have social security when these 25 year olds reach that age.

They will never do away with Social Security, because seniors vote in greater numbers than any other group, and there are more and more seniors every year.

In 10 years that won't be the case Grandpa. The Boomers are in decline and the next oldest generation is going to be overshadowed because he Millennials and Gen Z are both individually larger than Gen X. We're effectively skipping a generation in the power structure and that has serious complications for the existingg social structure. And oh by the way, they hate your generation with a fiery passion for all the damage you've done to the world, just as their teachers and heroes are telling them to.

---

To get back to SLF, I guess that 27 trillion is a number that won't collapse the economy, but 28 trillion is just too much, especially if it means 40 million people have more money in their pockets to put back into the economy. 

---

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think it was shot down because if you let people stop paying in, you accelerate the date when the fund is out of money and cannot pay out any more.  We have to have young people paying in so we can pay out to the old people.  Yes, it looks like (is?) a Ponzi scheme.  That's why you can't let people stop paying in.

---

They will never do away with Social Security, because seniors vote in greater numbers than any other group, and there are more and more seniors every year.

In 10 years that won't be the case Grandpa. The Boomers are in decline and the next oldest generation is going to be overshadowed because he Millennials and Gen Z are both individually larger than Gen X. We're effectively skipping a generation in the power structure and that has serious complications for the existingg social structure. And oh by the way, they hate your generation with a fiery passion for all the damage you've done to the world, just as their teachers and heroes are telling them to.

---

To get back to SLF, I guess that 27 trillion is a number that won't collapse the economy, but 28 trillion is just too much, especially if it means 40 million people have more money in their pockets to put back into the economy. 

---

You're saying that in 10 years it won't be the case that there are more seniors than there are now?  Is that what you are saying?  Because if so, that is demonstrably false.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2414...x-and-age/

---

Meanwhile, in the Social Security thread, the Student Loan Forgiveness debate rages on.......

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I think it was shot down because if you let people stop paying in, you accelerate the date when the fund is out of money and cannot pay out any more.  We have to have young people paying in so we can pay out to the old people.  Yes, it looks like (is?) a Ponzi scheme.  That's why you can't let people stop paying in.

---

They will never do away with Social Security, because seniors vote in greater numbers than any other group, and there are more and more seniors every year.

In 10 years that won't be the case Grandpa. The Boomers are in decline and the next oldest generation is going to be overshadowed because he Millennials and Gen Z are both individually larger than Gen X. We're effectively skipping a generation in the power structure and that has serious complications for the existingg social structure. And oh by the way, they hate your generation with a fiery passion for all the damage you've done to the world, just as their teachers and heroes are telling them to.

---

To get back to SLF, I guess that 27 trillion is a number that won't collapse the economy, but 28 trillion is just too much, especially if it means 40 million people have more money in their pockets to put back into the economy. 

---

I have been saying this for years. Gen X'rs should already have control of most of the power structures, but Boomers have held on WAY longer than any previous generation. Gen X is the generation that is best equipped to deal with most of our current issues, and we have been practically banned from any leadership. I read a study a few years back that showed Boomers were skipping Gen X'rs for leadership, feeling that a younger generation would to better in those positions, and I think that's partly to blame for the rise of Critical Theory in the American zeitgeist. If I cared more, I'd post it, but I completely agree with the bolded above.

---

In 10 years that won't be the case Grandpa. The Boomers are in decline and the next oldest generation is going to be overshadowed because he Millennials and Gen Z are both individually larger than Gen X. We're effectively skipping a generation in the power structure and that has serious complications for the existingg social structure. And oh by the way, they hate your generation with a fiery passion for all the damage you've done to the world, just as their teachers and heroes are telling them to.

---

To get back to SLF, I guess that 27 trillion is a number that won't collapse the economy, but 28 trillion is just too much, especially if it means 40 million people have more money in their pockets to put back into the economy. 

---

I have been saying this for years. Gen X'rs should already have control of most of the power structures, but Boomers have held on WAY longer than any previous generation. Gen X is the generation that is best equipped to deal with most of our current issues, and we have been practically banned from any leadership. I read a study a few years back that showed Boomers were skipping Gen X'rs for leadership, feeling that a younger generation would to better in those positions, and I think that's partly to blame for the rise of Critical Theory in the American zeitgeist. If I cared more, I'd post it, but I completely agree with the bolded above.

How in the world has anyone been banned from leadership?  That's a ridiculous assertion.

---

In 10 years that won't be the case Grandpa. The Boomers are in decline and the next oldest generation is going to be overshadowed because he Millennials and Gen Z are both individually larger than Gen X. We're effectively skipping a generation in the power structure and that has serious complications for the existingg social structure. And oh by the way, they hate your generation with a fiery passion for all the damage you've done to the world, just as their teachers and heroes are telling them to.

---

To get back to SLF, I guess that 27 trillion is a number that won't collapse the economy, but 28 trillion is just too much, especially if it means 40 million people have more money in their pockets to put back into the economy. 

---

You're saying that in 10 years it won't be the case that there are more seniors than there are now?  Is that what you are saying?  Because if so, that is demonstrably false.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2414...x-and-age/

The values of the Boomers are not the values of Gen X, and nearly the opposite of the Millennials. There will not be enough old Xers to retain the grip on power the way the Boomers have, they will be pushed out the way the Boomers were not. The idea that just because people get old means their values shift to the current ones is silly. The kids are going to have the power to bypass Gen X as the dominant generation and when they do then the old systems will come tumbling down.

---

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're saying that in 10 years it won't be the case that there are more seniors than there are now?  Is that what you are saying?  Because if so, that is demonstrably false.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2414...x-and-age/

The values of the Boomers are not the values of Gen X, and nearly the opposite of the Millennials. There will not be enough old Xers to retain the grip on power the way the Boomers have, they will be pushed out the way the Boomers were not. The idea that just because people get old means their values shift to the current ones is silly. The kids are going to have the power to bypass Gen X as the dominant generation and when they do then the old systems will come tumbling down.

---

Haha good luck with that!

---

I have been saying this for years. Gen X'rs should already have control of most of the power structures, but Boomers have held on WAY longer than any previous generation. Gen X is the generation that is best equipped to deal with most of our current issues, and we have been practically banned from any leadership. I read a study a few years back that showed Boomers were skipping Gen X'rs for leadership, feeling that a younger generation would to better in those positions, and I think that's partly to blame for the rise of Critical Theory in the American zeitgeist. If I cared more, I'd post it, but I completely agree with the bolded above.

How in the world has anyone been banned from leadership?  That's a ridiculous assertion.

Bro, maybe your problem is reading comprehension. I said practically banned, which should indicate that they were not directly banned, but something to that effect. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that that comment was not meant to be taken literally. Even so, for the people who are too literal to understand hyperbole, I retract the phrase and replace it with overlooked. I gave the reason most cited in the study I read, which was that Boomers passed on Gen X'rs because they wanted more youth in leadership positions, predominately because they were more tech savvy (even though that's not really true).

---

How in the world has anyone been banned from leadership?  That's a ridiculous assertion.

Bro, maybe your problem is reading comprehension. I said practically banned, which should indicate that they were not directly banned, but something to that effect. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that that comment was not meant to be taken literally. Even so, for the people who are too literal to understand hyperbole, I retract the phrase and replace it with overlooked. I gave the reason most cited in the study I read, which was that Boomers passed on Gen X'rs because they wanted more youth in leadership positions, predominately because they were more tech savvy (even though that's not really true).

Bro, maybe your problem is that you read something inaccurate and believed it.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/generati...-work.html

In our Global Leadership Forecast 2018 — published by DDI, The Conference Board and EY with support from CNBC — we took a look at more than 25,000 leaders spanning 54 countries and 26 major industry sectors. We found that Gen X now accounts for 51 percent of leadership roles globally. With an average of 20 years of workplace experience, they are primed to quickly assume nearly all top executive roles.

---

Again, starting to think reading isn't your strong suit. From your article: 

Despite their growing influence and responsibilities at work, Gen Xers are most overlooked for promotion and have been the slowest to advance. We found Gen X leaders on average had only 1.2 promotions in the past 5 years, significantly lower than their younger millennial counterparts (1.6 promotions) and more senior baby boomers (1.4 promotions) during the same period of time.

Gen X'rs are approaching their 50's and they are in 51% of leadership positions? They are barely breaking 50% and they are set to retire in 10-15 years. The reins should have been being handed over years ago. Also, that article doesn't bother making any distinction between leadership positions. 2 years I read an actual study (not an MSM article interpreted by a journalist) that stated that Gen X'rs are being passed over for leadership positions because of the mistaken assumption that millennials are more tech savvy and aware of modern trends, which your article reinforces. Keep up, bro. I would go find the study, but what's the point? You can't even read your own article that supports what I'm saying.

---

Again, starting to think reading isn't your strong suit. From your article: 

Despite their growing influence and responsibilities at work, Gen Xers are most overlooked for promotion and have been the slowest to advance. We found Gen X leaders on average had only 1.2 promotions in the past 5 years, significantly lower than their younger millennial counterparts (1.6 promotions) and more senior baby boomers (1.4 promotions) during the same period of time.

Gen X'rs are approaching their 50's and they are in 51% of leadership positions? They are barely breaking 50% and they are set to retire in 10-15 years. The reins should have been being handed over years ago. Also, that article doesn't bother making any distinction between leadership positions. 2 years I read an actual study (not an MSM article interpreted by a journalist) that stated that Gen X'rs are being passed over for leadership positions because of the mistaken assumption that millennials are more tech savvy and aware of modern trends, which your article reinforces. Keep up, bro. I would go find the study, but what's the point? You can't even read your own article that supports what I'm saying.

"I would go find the study, but..."  
Yawn. Of course you won't. 

Congratulations on cherry picking a paragraph of something that sort of supports the hyperbole you were so quick to backpedal from while the rest of the article does the opposite. 

Regardless of this study, your long lost study, or any other -  the notion that Gen X is being severly marginalized is overblown.  As is the notion that there is some great risk involved. But people just love to have some [BLEEP] to be afraid of, so ... fear on.

---

Bro, it literally says that Gen X'rs are being promoted at a rate that is not on pace for that of Boomers AND Millennials. This is exactly what was stated earlier and speaks to the point that I was making. Same with FSG. What point are you making? It's not cherry picking when it is the EXACT point I made earlier. Even using the EXACT word I chose in my correction: Overlooked. Fix yourself.

---

I love it that you even pretend to assume there isn't a study out there that supports that idea, when that is exactly what that article was referencing. What a clown.

Same thing taken from a different article, referencing the same study:

The finding is unexpected, as Gen Xers — now ranging in age from their late thirties to early fifties — should currently be in the peak stage of their careers, and advancing rapidly. However, many Baby Boomers are deciding to stay in the workforce much longer than previous generations, which may be affecting Gen X’s advancement. More than half of Baby Boomers are reportedly delaying retirement, many until 70 or later, because of financial insecurity and rising health care costs. As a result, older workers are not only holding onto their jobs longer but also are still trying to advance into higher-paying roles.

As a result of the attention paid to Baby Boomers and Millennials, Gen X often gets short shrift, a trend that has continued over time. Looking back at our past global leadership surveys, we found that Gen X’s promotion rate has consistently been 20%–30% slower than Millennials’. However, we also discovered that Gen X is playing a critical but often underappreciated role in the workforce.

So despite playing a critical role in the work place, Gen X is getting outpaced by millennials AND boomers in promotion. Why don't you do some research and tell me if Boomers were this far behind at the same point in their careers (newsflash: you can't).

---