It is increasing, apparently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/census-data-show-wealth-of-older-americans-is-47-times-that-of-young-adults-widest-gap-ever/2011/11/06/gIQAs990sM_story.html

To some degree, it's expected... But 47 times?! maybe there is some truth in the thought that some out the resources should be spent on those worse off than retirees. I mean....our social security has already been stolen from us.

Discuss.

11/7/2011 10:46:20 AM

The baby boomers have ruined the country financially and they expect us to pay for it.

Anyone under the age of 30 right now should be preparing for generation warfare, because its the only way any of us will ever accumulate any wealth.

Their plan is to tax everything we make and spend all of it on healthcare and a comfortable retirement, that's why none of them bothered saving during their working years.

Luckily, their numbers have started to dwindle as they die off and ours are growing.

11/7/2011 11:01:58 AM

There's an interesting role for the medical system in this drama.

One would think that consumption by the elderly wouldn't rise significantly, but it can because the economy won't follow the same rules as before. The medical system could continue to eat up GDP while the mostly-young cohort faces a form of austerity to pay for this.

Also, next to managers, doctors represent the 2nd largest group in the top 1%.

11/7/2011 11:05:49 AM

Quote :

"The baby boomers have ruined the country financially and they expect us to pay for it. Anyone under the age of 30 right now should be preparing for generation warfare, because its the only way any of us will ever accumulate any wealth. Their plan is to tax everything we make and spend all of it on healthcare and a comfortable retirement, that's why none of them bothered saving during their working years. Luckily, their numbers have started to dwindle as they die off and ours are growing."

They don't just expect us to pay for it, they're going to force us to pay for it. They promised themselves our wages and labor long before we were ever born. Thomas Jefferson spoke against this kind of thing frequently, stating that debt should always be paid off by the same generation that accrues it.

The problem is that they've actually recruited most (maybe even the majority) of our generation to fight for their cause. They'll make absurd claims like "Social Security is sustainable with some small changes", not fully realizing how heavily the burden to "save" entitlements falls on them.

They've also got the "emotional" advantage, since anyone supporting the continuation of this unjust wealth transfer system can say that we're "taking care of the elderly." I guess it doesn't matter that we literally have a lost generation on our hands that is not on track to be nearly as successful as the previous generation.

11/7/2011 11:40:04 AM

In other news, cases of nursing home abuse are predicted to rise.

11/7/2011 11:54:02 AM

Quote :

"The median net worth for the younger-age households was $3,662, "

Seriously. Less than four grand net worth. That's not even trying to save or get anywhere. I would be curious to see how that breaks down on a per year group because 18-35 is a huge range, but damn.

11/7/2011 1:49:15 PM

^ I don't know if it's that hard to imagine, even if it's sad.

Put yourself in the middle of that age range, like a 26 year-old couple with a young kid or two. Living in a trailer they don't own, just rent. Have a bank account with 3 digits. Drives an old used pickup. Maybe a few payments on car or purchases, which is debt that will bring the worth down. If a big expense comes up, they might be visiting the paycheck advance place.

Sounds like some people I know from high school. None in the Raleigh area, but they're out there nonetheless.

11/7/2011 2:00:10 PM

That is really interesting. IN other news, the more you work the more money you earn too.

Oh and if you put more money into savings, you will have more money in savings.


I said before that people are wanting to increase taxes on people working(calling them rich) so that the people with wealth wont have to pay more in taxes or for services they use. Just doesnt make sense to me. THe working young are graduating with higher education debt and higher COL than previous generations, yet the ONLY solution to our budget woes is to make these people take home less? No wonder many younger people are just opting out and taking the system.

11/7/2011 3:00:25 PM

Quote :

"In other news, cases of nursing home abuse are predicted to rise."

lol, nice.

11/7/2011 3:01:02 PM

i wonder how long they're going to last though...they will have been the first generation to have ever grown up on all the scientific advancements in life after ww2 and the side effects that come with it

more cancer(s)?

diabeetus

is life expectancy going down?

11/7/2011 3:05:36 PM

Quote :

"is life expectancy going down? "

No


Just use some common sense. When you are younger you typically start with little money, college debt, start a family, and prob have a mortgage payment. At 65 you shouldnt have ANY of those expenses. In fact your house would now be a called an asset not a liablity. Sadly though, at 22 we expect to have the same lifestyle our parents had so they take on too much debt.

11/7/2011 3:10:39 PM

I would imagine that a large portion of the negative net worth from the younger generation is due to student loans.

11/7/2011 3:22:10 PM

and mortgages. Student loan debt just now passed credit card debt, so I would still think the mortgage would be the biggest debt.

11/7/2011 3:32:36 PM

As mentioned in the article, those that bought houses right before the economy shat the bed are probably in a big pickle now too.

11/7/2011 3:54:22 PM

^ only if they need to move. If they planned on staying in the house they will be just fine. The housing market will recover when the inventory starts to fall and foreclosures are off the market. (of course the govt has made this much more difficult for banks to get rid of them, so they drag it out further)

11/7/2011 3:58:31 PM

I suppose that might factor into things. However, I think that older americans (who have had the chance to save over the years) would be more prepared than the younger generation to ride out the storm of the housing bubble.
Also, I bet the older generation was able to buy houses cheaper long ago, and were able to see a general rise in the market value of their homes. Losing $100k in the value of your home sucks either way you cut it.... but if your property value has risen $200k since the purchase, it may sting a bit less.

11/7/2011 4:10:59 PM

Quote :

"Put yourself in the middle of that age range, like a 26 year-old couple with a young kid or two. Living in a trailer they don't own, just rent. Have a bank account with 3 digits. Drives an old used pickup. Maybe a few payments on car or purchases, which is debt that will bring the worth down. If a big expense comes up, they might be visiting the paycheck advance place."

I'm slightly past the middle of that (still under 30 though). I dont have kids yet because they are expensive and i know that i also wouldn't have the proper amount of time to spend with them right now. I live in a house with a mortgage but its a positive asset because its worth more than i owe. My bank account has 3 figures, the brokerage accounts are a different story. We have 2 newer cars (07 and 08) both full paid for, which count towards more positive assets. If a big expense comes up i'll have to pull some funds out of the short term high liquidity investment, like a money market.

I will grant that there are people i went to HS with that are out in the sticks in a trailer with kids (that may or may not be biologically related to both adults in the house). But the ratio of them to the ratio of individuals like myself has to be waaay bigger then i thought for the median to be $3,662 dollars.

11/7/2011 4:27:03 PM

EMCE I get what you are saying but you only lose money when you sell, just like a stock. As for the older generation buying houses cheaper, well yeah.(if they stayed in that home) THe dollar has lost a ton of value over the last 30-40 yrs. In 1970 the average home price was 65k.

Inflation is a bitch, that most people dont realize/consider.

http://mercyman53.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-cost-of-housing-1050-higher-than-1970-and-climbing/

you might find those numbers interesting. (although he whines a bit)

11/7/2011 4:52:37 PM

I'm just bitter, ok?!
I'm in Washington, DC. $300k would be just enough to buy me a tiny little shack here.

11/7/2011 5:06:43 PM

Silly kids, this just means that we're set to inherit way more than we planned on

Think of old people as an investment soon to mature in your favor

[Edited on November 7, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2011 10:48:58 PM

whenever i see these things i'm reminded of my grandmother: she was left with a over a million $ in stock when her second husband passed away, but she was still getting a good SS check from the government. she used those checks as her "vegas money".

i mean, i know she's not a typical example, but it's clear that the younger generations are getting fleeced by the baby boomers and older in the current system. changes are absolutely needed, but no politicians have the balls to do it...

11/8/2011 7:33:06 AM

^^ Nah, people want to raise the inheritance taxes too.

11/8/2011 7:44:07 AM

11/8/2011 7:53:13 AM

spooner, why shouldnt your grandmother get her SS check? She paid into it, and was promised it.

I just wish our govt would get out of the redistribution racket completely. Then we certainly wouldnt have these class warfare issues where everyone feels they arent getting what is fair. (even though it usually comes from someone else)

11/8/2011 8:46:52 AM

theres a lot of people who took out a hell of a lot more than they put in.

It's a classic ponzi scheme and it's coming unravelled becasue there aren't enough payers.

11/8/2011 9:42:25 AM

Quote :

"She paid into it, and was promised it."

The supreme court ruled half a century ago that there is no promise to pay SS to anyone.

Look at it another way. She also paid regular income taxes, does that make her entitled to farm subsidies even though she doesn't farm?

11/8/2011 9:59:25 AM

i mean, she lived until she was 90 and started collecting checks when she was 63 (i think?). and it's not as if she worked full time for 30 years prior to that. so, God bless her, no way she put in NEAR enough to cover what she was paid. and that money was primarily handed over to casino owners in Vegas.

my only real point was that hey, it's clear that SS and medicare are not sustainable and more is being paid out (to older generations) than they put in - so the system needs to be fixed, scrapped, or something. simple things, like means testing will help. but, as i said, no politician has the balls to do it!

[Edited on November 8, 2011 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2011 12:57:04 PM

Quote :

"She paid into it"

B should be able to take from C. After all, A took from B, first.

11/8/2011 3:08:54 PM

Quote :

"While we may never pinpoint the root cause of student debt, it’s quite clear where we ended up. A Pew Research study this past week revealed that a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times that of a 35-year-old. That is believed to be the biggest wealth disparity in American history, and surely student debt, along with high unemployment, factors into the equation."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WEALTH_GAP_YOUNG_AND_OLD

11/17/2011 11:41:46 AM

My friend dropped out of high school and works for Progress energy making 90k

11/20/2011 10:40:49 PM

should I look for statistics showing how improbable that was for your friend?

11/20/2011 11:43:01 PM

Somewhat relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

It's long, but it is a pretty good lecture.

11/21/2011 12:01:05 AM

Quote :

"B should be able to take from C. After all, A took from B, first. "

Im not saying it is the right thing at all. Id rather we do away with SS overtime, but to say that someone who has money collects SS is somehow wrong just isnt the case. Unless you want to turn SS into just a welfare program, then that complaint would have merit. As it is now the tax on SS and the benefit are capped. Pay in the max amount and receive the max payment. Pay in nothing and still get something. (a much better return on "investment" btw)

11/21/2011 9:13:15 PM

Top 0.1% Earn 50% of Capital Gains

11/21/2011 11:03:24 PM

Quite right. As such, we should abolish the corporate tax and make capital gains taxed as regular income.

11/22/2011 1:11:06 AM

Means testing and phasing out SS will be necessary if we want to keep it for much longer.

11/22/2011 3:04:36 AM

^replace it with private accounts would be much better for everyone.

No worries we still have the Trust fund full of money from our govt overtaxing its people. What? They pissed that away too? Well they PROMISED to pay it back at least..... Wont be an issue considering we are ONLY 15T in debt and rising rapidly. haha

11/22/2011 12:16:53 PM

Private accounts are available as is. Pay out to those currently collecting, those who are relatively close to retirement and then get rid of it.

11/22/2011 12:32:12 PM

Lettuce discuss the corporate redistributing of wealth from workers to fatcat execs.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/the-obama-coalition-vs-corporate-america/

1/11/2013 7:19:29 AM

Conservatives blame old people for debt problems but refuse to tax them at a higher rate ITT.

1/11/2013 9:22:38 AM

Quote :

"I said before that people are wanting to increase taxes on people working(calling them rich) so that the people with wealth wont have to pay more in taxes or for services they use. Just doesnt make sense to me."

Interesting perspective. It took me a while to parse that.

Wealth - capital owned
Income - amount of money made per unit time

In political discussion, we do speak of income inequality as if it is wealth inequality. Of course it isn't, but accumulation of wealth is a path to the pursuit of happiness. To garnish wealth would be possibly the most flagrant violation of the constitution I could possibly imagine.

In a certain sense, our central banking system accomplished the task of garnishing wealth. If your wealth maintains constant in real terms you still have to pay taxes on it's value gain relative to the dollar. When we are in recession, talk of how to combat deflation is more-or-less a discussion of how to effectively garnish wealth (not income).

The focus on the 1% preferentially targets new money over old money. They're still rich though. If you were in the 1% in some prior year and you are not rich anymore, then you did it wrong. And you might be an NBA player.

1/11/2013 10:10:19 AM

Generally speaking, higher income does tend to belong to the same people who have higher wealth. Also, talking about the 1% is talking about people who's income is well over $1M. At that point, you have stopped talking about most small business owners, high level engineers, moderately successful doctors and other people in that class. The 1% of income earners almost exclusively talks about upper level athletes, executives, the relatively miniscule number of business owners who have enjoyed great success, and the investment class. There is a massive gap between the top 1% and top 2%. This is not really new money. Most people in the 1% are 50+ years old and have likely benefited from the wealth of their families and are simply adding to that. Upward mobility is at an all-time low in this country. There aren't a whole lot of millionaires and billionaires who have zero income. If you're older, you live longer and you can work longer and you can always pay someone else to earn capital gains for you.

So if you really want a tax on wealth rather than income to help even the playing field between old and young, you should support raising the capital gains tax (which is a tax on accruing income through wealth already owned) and raising the estate tax for people inheriting $1M+.

1/11/2013 11:23:00 AM

Quote :

"Also, talking about the 1% is talking about people who's income is well over $1M."

Were you born yesterday?

1/11/2013 12:47:12 PM

Obamacare will help bring about that old people pay less and young people pay far more! AARP approved... means increasing costs being shifted on the younger generation even though they use far less healthcare.



Lets fuck over the young generation with our debt and make them pay far more for healthcare!

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM. Reason : AARP approved]

1/11/2013 1:17:05 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that they've actually recruited most (maybe even the majority) of our generation to fight for their cause. They'll make absurd claims like "Social Security is sustainable with some small changes", not fully realizing how heavily the burden to "save" entitlements falls on them."

What do you think about taxing capital gains the same as any other form of income? I have a feeling you'd be against it. The people who would be hurt by removing the capital gains tax break are the same who are causing this inequality.

1/11/2013 1:21:03 PM

Quote :

"Also, talking about the 1% is talking about people who's income is well over $1M."

once again, imstoned420 talks a good game but has no clue what he's talking about.

you don't even need to make half that to be in the 1%.



[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2013 1:36:12 PM

I had to look it up, so you can rip on me for it as well, but apparently it only takes 350k to be in the top 1%. The article I took that info from seems to indicate that the more you make, the more you think richer people than you make, so maybe you people are just poor.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48338035/Who_Me_A_One_Percenter

1/11/2013 1:48:46 PM

I was mistaken. But...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm

Quote :

"Collectively, their adjusted gross income was $1.3 trillion. And while $343,927 was the minimum AGI to be included, on average, Top 1-percenters made $960,000."

I wasn't far off with the average. And...

Quote :

"In 2007, when times were good on Wall Street, one needed to have an adjusted gross income of more than $424,000 to get into the highest rank. But the stock market decline in recent years has helped lower that bar back to a level not seen since 2002."

Your numbers are from 2010 so it's probably closer to $500k currently.

Either way, I don't think the fact that I was a little off on the exact 1% threshold ruins the core of my argument. The rest of what I said mostly still applies.

1/11/2013 5:26:16 PM

That's a bullshit way to spin your 1% numbers.

Quote :

"a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times that of a 35-year-old"

Incidentally, I'm 33, and my investment goal for retirement is pretty close to 47x my current net worth.

In other words, if you save like you should, that disparity works out to be what happens (assuming historical averages ROIs).

1/13/2013 9:27:33 AM

Quote :

"but no politicians have the balls to do it"

I think this also partially has to do with the divide between how age correlates with likelihood to vote. Making it easier for younger people to vote wont solve this problem, but it will be a step in the right direction. More early voting and emphasizing same day registration helps bring newer/younger people into the voting populace. Election day itself being on a Tuesday for example inherently is easier to access for retired folks than young working families.

1/13/2013 12:59:43 PM