Rug the Spammers and Fuck the BoomersRug the Spammers and Fuck the Boomers

If you haven't been following along my tongue-in-cheek (or??) crusade against boomers -- who are ungrateful parasites, and disingenuous, luxury communists, undeserving of everything they have and in immediate need of scalping -- here's a recap: dudes rode the most extravagant and obscene upward-redistributive asset-transfer in the history of humankind, built out all the big government, warmongering, surveillance state crap we're suffering from, and usually have the stomach to demand retirement payments and extensive care from the rest of us.

I say rug them!

But let's be serious for a moment.

Every society has to figure out a way to move value across an individual's life cycle or, put differently, across generations -- with consequences of life variance falling on someone, somewhere. At some point in the recent century, people in megalomaniac charge had the insane idea to let large-scale, communist government redistribution problems be a stand-in for this -- and pretend it was a societal contract to which we're all obviously bound.

Tomas Savidge at The Daily Economy reviews a new book by Romina Boccia and Ivane Nachkebia’s Reimagining Social Security, and there's a paragraph in there that seems to me to be a COMPLETE SLAM DUNK:

1. You cannot support everyone by taxing everyone
2. the point and purpose of Social Security itself was to prevent old-age poverty. We don't have that: we only have ungrateful luxury communists milking everyone else.
3. EVEN YOUR IDOL FDR HIMSELF said as much.

Game over, boomers. Checkmate.Game over, boomers. Checkmate.

Now give back all your undeserved wealth. REPENT.

This shit is more unsustainable than the fiat money system us Bitcoiners are here to overthrow:

The book draws lessons from Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and Sweden. Its reform menu includes a higher retirement age, a flatter benefit, automatic balancing mechanisms, and expanded private saving. Cato’s reform hub frames the problem clearly: promises exceed dedicated financing, and delay makes the eventual adjustment larger.

solvency and purpose are separate questions. Congress could close the gap through higher payroll taxes, benefit cuts, borrowing, heavier taxation of benefits, a higher retirement age, or some combination. None of those prescriptions answers what Social Security is for.

"A flat benefit would bring Old-Age Insurance back to its original promise of “some measure of protection” against end-of-life poverty""A flat benefit would bring Old-Age Insurance back to its original promise of “some measure of protection” against end-of-life poverty"

... while making redistribution more explicit. Low earners would be protected. Middle- and high-income workers would rely more on private saving and receive less than scheduled benefits

Shockingly, I actually don't mind the minor SS payments that much; the shit y'alls did in stock markets and housing wealth is more obscene. 100% capital gains tax if you're above 60, please.

Reimagining Social Security asks whether Social Security should remain an expansive public pension promise or become a clear floor against old-age poverty. [...] As Social Security rapidly approaches the fiscal cliff, Reimagining serves as an important starting point for a national conversation about the program’s future — one that can no longer be deferred.

If Bernie and AOC and Elizabeth Warren would just change their "tax the billionaire" shit into "rug the boomers," Den would instantly be a fan....

**