Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Are retirees really “living off the backs of the young”?



Photo above - Wadleigh High School in NYC. It has a 57% dropout rate. Teacher salaries that begin at $70,000 and reach $150,000. Newsweek says that retirees are the reason NY schools are failing.

My mind was blown when I read Newsweek’s claim (link below): “Retirees living off the backs of the young.” I have never seen a more audacious anti-boomer rant.

Newsweek's premise is that Social Security is unfair to kids. After a worker is forced to contribute 7.X% of their gross pay to the fund for a lifetime, if they live long enough to collect any benefits then those retirees are screwing . . . the schools?

Retirees probably have a different take on the situation, but Colombian-American reporter Jesus Mesa seems to have dodged the opportunity to interview any of them for his scoop. Jesus now lives in NYC, and most retirees from there flee to places like Florida and Texas. This because their social security benefits checks are subject to tax. It's double taxation- they were bled when their SSI taxes were withheld, and again when those monthly checks arrive now. If they live long enough. The legal age of retirement keeps going up.

This year the social security cost of living increase could actually be a net REDUCTION after mandatory Medicare premium increases are factored in.

Okay, enough of the retiree bashing, Jesus. It’s clear they had nothing to do with any school funding problems. Retirees are simply trying to avoid becoming homeless. Many of America’s homeless are late-in-life workers who lost their jobs, never had pensions, and every time they turn on the TV they get bad news about the cost of living.

Jesus, I get it: the public schools you walk past in New York do seem like a dystopian horror film. But let’s stay focused on the numbers. New York has some of the highest taxes in the universe. State income tax, city income tax, property tax, a giant retail sales tax. $22 bucks just to cross the GW Bridge. And now a new tax just to enter the borough of Manhattan once you do make it over the bridge.

If NYC schools are screwing kids, it’s possibly due to government spending priorities. In the past couple of years the city has built monuments; hired robots to patrol the subways (this failed, predictably); legalized weed and created a bureaucracy to oversee door dash style pot deliveries. Billions spent to house throngs of undocumented migrants in hotels, feed them, and provide medical services. The incoming mayor wants to make all municipal buses trips, and triple the number of apartments subject to rent control. Not sure what Mamdani plans to do with the schools. Oh yes, sorry - we do know sorry: The presumptive winner wants to end charter schools as too elitist. Has anyone interviewed that parents about THAT idea, Mr. Mamdani?

So you might conclude that schools are circling the drain because elected politicians are incompetent and corrupt. And that’s correct up to a point. But one of the most powerful voting constituencies in the city are the teachers. Starting salary – right out of college – is $70,000, before health benefits, retirement funds, etc. Experienced teachers top out at $150,000.

The most recent NY teachers' contract (link at bottom) is a nightmare. Average 4% annual salary increases over the length of the deal. PLUS a $3,000 dollar “retention bonus” (bribe if they don’t quit). The $3,000 is separate from their annual pay. Notably, the teachers' union did NOT have go on strike to score all their demands. The city government rolled over and agreed to it all. Teachers do vote, after all. In fact, lots of schools are actually polling places.

Jesus – the problem is NOT retirees collecting social security. It’s high taxes, insane spending priorities, and school administrators and staff getting paid huge salaries with no accountability for job performance.

I’m just sayin’ . . .



How retirees are living off the backs of the young

NYC teachers get 20% pay hike in 5 year, $6.4 billion deal
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Roadsterrider · 56-60, M
As a Gen Xer, I think the boomers and Gen X are living off the funds contributed by those younger generations working and paying taxes today. It isn't their fault, they have paid into the system their whole life, they didn't have a choice. The government has mismanaged the program and the funds that have been drawn from the wages of those paying in to the program.

Social security was never intended for everyone, it was a program to aid those that did not have any kind of pension plan that would allow them to retire. It was originally 1% of the first $3000 dollars earned annually. Today, it is 6.2% on wages up to $176K annually. And since it's inception the employer has been required to pay the same percentage. In 1950, the government started adding to who could draw SS.

Because the funds have not been managed effectively, and the system counts on new workers being required to contribute to the system, yes, the money younger workers pay today is supporting those who are drawing SS today. And with automation, AI, and a smaller work force related to who is using the funds, $1.5 trillion in 2024, 22% of the total federal budget. For the future generations, it will become unsustainable if not managed.

Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Trump, Biden, Obama, don't need SS to retire, but today, they are eligible to claim it and because they made more money, they will be paid at a higher rate than those who weren't as fortunate and have needs greater than they are receiving.

As I am nearing retirement, I have contributed to SS my entire life, I can't use the benefit until at least 62 years. My retirement account is going to provide more than social security for a longer period of time. As I paid taxes on wages that were taken for social security, and since 1983, at least a portion of what I will receive from social security is taxed, those who receive the benefit are being taxed twice on part of their return.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@Roadsterrider you are incorrect on the facts. social security was devised during the FDR administration for everyone. because nobody had pensions. the fact that people don't save for retirement is true today. and was true back then
@SusanInFlorida Not every job offers 401Ks or pension plans, specially if you get stuck with temp agencies and retail/food service.
Roadsterrider · 56-60, M
@SusanInFlorida Search for FDRs speech on social security, hear it from the man himself, the message was about those who didn't have a pension, in the past, many companies had pension plans, as social security grew, companies dropped pensions because they pay into social security instead of a pension plan. Social security was for those with no pension, no means to retire, otherwise they were destitute or worked till they died at the job.