nope not by me as an individual, by US as citizens.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
By you?
That's not going to get you your money back, unless you want to raise taxes so the government can afford it.
I know that, I would be working toward stopping the bleeding and cutting the program off.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's not going to get you your money back, unless you want to raise taxes so the government can afford it.
You having an aging population, a global economy that still is trying to recover from a global financial crisis caused by the banking sector and record low levels of tax paid by the rich - and you take this as a reason 'socialism' is failing you. It's like you can't see the forest for the trees. Shit is fucked up at the moment and social service programs are running at capacity; this is true for everywhere. People are out of work and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, (don't get me started on the boomer generation.) Of course social services are going to be stretched. It's like blaming a hospital for failing to keep up with an epidemic. I imagine America's social services will be particularly disadvantaged by the fact that much of the population fights tooth and nail to ensure that the rich still get their tax breaks - because they're the "job creators" right?
Well they're not creating jobs, as proven by the rate of unemployment, they're not being taxed and tax money is required. What's the answer here? The rich in America are taxed at an incredibly low rate, the lowest for a generation or two I believe, and the reason for this is because it was thought that they would use these tax savings create jobs. But they haven't. Instead of using tax savings to hire new employees they're giving the savings to themselves as bonuses. Meanwhile people are out of work and draining unemployment which the rich are no longer having a real hand in contributing to.
You're in a position where your social services are running out of money and you're giving tax money to people who don't have a need for it. And you're placing blame on the social services themselves?
Well they're not creating jobs, as proven by the rate of unemployment, they're not being taxed and tax money is required. What's the answer here? The rich in America are taxed at an incredibly low rate, the lowest for a generation or two I believe, and the reason for this is because it was thought that they would use these tax savings create jobs. But they haven't. Instead of using tax savings to hire new employees they're giving the savings to themselves as bonuses. Meanwhile people are out of work and draining unemployment which the rich are no longer having a real hand in contributing to.
You're in a position where your social services are running out of money and you're giving tax money to people who don't have a need for it. And you're placing blame on the social services themselves?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
This was an interesting Oped. Is related.
News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.
Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?
Apparently not.
Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.
The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.
There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.
"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.
The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.
At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.
As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.
Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.
Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.
The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.
The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.
That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said.
But Republican lawmakers haven't always worried about tax cuts increasing the deficit. They led the fight to extend the life of a much bigger tax break: the major 2001 income tax reduction enacted under Bush. It was scheduled to expire at the start of this year. Obama campaigned on a pledge to end the tax break only for the richest Americans, but solid GOP opposition forced him to back down.
Many Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes but largely silent on what it would mean to let the payroll tax break expire.
Republicans cite key differences between the two "temporary" taxes, starting with the fact that the Bush measure had a 10-year life from the start. To stimulate job growth, these lawmakers say, it's better to reduce income tax rates for people and for companies than to extend the payroll tax break.
"We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says payroll tax reductions give the economy a short-term boost. But it says the benefit is bigger if employers get the tax break instead of, or along with, workers.
Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks.
Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.
Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he "would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side" to spur job growth, his campaign said.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans will fall under increasing pressure to extend the payroll tax cut. If they refuse, he said in a recent speech, "we're going to end up in a position where we're going to raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans the day they go to work."
Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.
For decades the payroll tax generated more revenue than the Social Security paid out in benefits. The excess was used to fund other government operations. Last year, however, Social Security benefits began outstripping revenue from its designated sources, forcing the program to start tapping its "trust fund" of government obligations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nope my position is, SS should have never been stolen from earners in the first place, and if you wanna help those that "need it" you could have job creation incentives like I previously mentioned.Ty wrote:
You having an aging population, a global economy that still is trying to recover from a global financial crisis caused by the banking sector and record low levels of tax paid by the rich - and you take this as a reason 'socialism' is failing you. It's like you can't see the forest for the trees. Shit is fucked up at the moment and social service programs are running at capacity; this is true for everywhere. People are out of work and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, (don't get me started on the boomer generation.) Of course social services are going to be stretched. It's like blaming a hospital for failing to keep up with an epidemic. I imagine America's social services will be particularly disadvantaged by the fact that much of the population fights tooth and nail to ensure that the rich still get their tax breaks - because they're the "job creators" right?
Well they're not creating jobs, as proven by the rate of unemployment, they're not being taxed and tax money is required. What's the answer here? The rich in America are taxed at an incredibly low rate, the lowest for a generation or two I believe, and the reason for this is because it was thought that they would use these tax savings create jobs. But they haven't. Instead of using tax savings to hire new employees they're giving the savings to themselves as bonuses. Meanwhile people are out of work and draining unemployment which the rich are no longer having a real hand in contributing to.
You're in a position where your social services are running out of money and you're giving tax money to people who don't have a need for it. And you're placing blame on the social services themselves?
Is it your position that if you can't save everyone, save no one? Perhaps you believe a society can actually tax itself into prosperity?
Last edited by lowing (2011-08-21 22:58:30)
I guess your solution is to force those who don't have enough money saved to retire, to never retire. Yeah, that's a great idea. Have 70 year olds still working for a living. omglowing wrote:
Is it your position that if you can't save everyone, save no one? Perhaps you believe a society can actually tax itself into prosperity?
No actually, I clearly stated the solution is jobs creation. Go back and check you'll see. Will people feel it sure they will, but then again if not at jobs, where do you suggest we start I mean since staying within budget is impossible.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess your solution is to force those who don't have enough money saved to retire, to never retire. Yeah, that's a great idea. Have 70 year olds still working for a living. omglowing wrote:
Is it your position that if you can't save everyone, save no one? Perhaps you believe a society can actually tax itself into prosperity?
Last edited by lowing (2011-08-21 23:26:43)
What is wrong with privatized retirement?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What's wrong with saving for your own retirement? My generation & those that follow were never going to get much of a state pension, we knew this, only the stupid didn't plan for this. In the UK you can pay less National Insurance & put that money into your own pension fund, its like an opt out of state pension.
edit:-awful spelling
edit:-awful spelling
Last edited by Monkey Spanker (2011-08-22 00:32:15)
Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
I don't see why I should be taxed to death to pay the pensions of people who saved nothing themselves and put the country into massive debt.rdx-fx wrote:
<rant>
Yep.
All these fucking Baby Boomers. Have their boats, ATVs, massive 5th wheel vacation trailers, and every other toy they can make the monthly payment on.
Yet they're putting the bare minimum into their retirement fund, pay jack shit towards their kid's college (forcing the kid into massive debt to pay for it), and generally behave like short-sighted nimrods with poor life planning skills and poorer impulse control.
Meanwhile,
I'm saving for my retirement (because I know SS isn't going to be there at all),
planning for the day when I have to support at least one of my parents, who just loves her big house, expensive vehicles, 'Boomer Toys (see above), horses, dogs, and fine living ... but hasn't a dime in any sort of retirement fund.
(the other can have my half-sisters take care of him, as that is the family he chose)
already saving for my daughter's college fund (she's 4),
already looking into private schooling for my daughter, as public schooling here is for shit
(No Child Left Behind = every child held back at the level of the dumbest paste-eating window-licker in the county = no funding for Gifted & Talented courses, it's all being spent on remedial paste-eating classes),
Thank fuck I've been fortunate enough to have decent paying jobs.
No fancy cars, just two reliable Subaru sedans, and a modest (rented) house.
Have actual responsibilities to pay for - can't afford to fuck around with huge expensive toys and "living high on the hog", like my parent's generation.
</rant>
My father was a civil servant, he worked 30 years and has been retired 20, he's received more in pension than he ever paid in tax - although I know thats not quite how govt pensions work but whatever.
On the plus side there are going to be a lot of boomer businesses going very cheap over the next few years.
That nameplate, office and a few vans and/or employees they thought they could sell and retire on the proceeds are going to be worth exactly nothing - look forward to the govt allowing in Chinese if they invest $200k in a business - Australia already does it.
As for 'investments', the share market is going to be screwed in the long term as the boomers cash in their chips, property the same, hence part of the gold boom I guess.
Medical business will see a decade long positive blip, otherwise we just have to wait for them to die off.
I'm bloody tired of the medical demands they come up with, artificial joints, quadruple bypasses, diabetes, physiotherapy etc, mostly caused by being greedy fat and lazy. I keep myself fit and healthy, I should get a tax rebate just for that.
That and they expect to see a doctor for an hour at a time each time they get a sniffle or mild discomfort.
Compulsory extreme sports for retirees is my suggestion.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-22 01:59:38)
Fuck Israel
To be invested in what?Monkey Spanker wrote:
if you are earning surely you should have your own pension scheme you pay into monthly. That would be the proper way to plan for an retirement you have known would be tricky financially. Or is that me being retarded.
Fuck Israel
Is this where I plug our superannuation scheme?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Spark wrote:
Is this where I plug our ponzi scheme?
Fuck Israel
Meh, so is our housing market I guess. For some reason I'm not that worried.Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:
Is this where I plug our ponzi scheme?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The highlighted portion is patently false. Has been shown to be false multiple times. How many times does it have to be shown before people accept it as a leftist talking point and nothing more?Ty wrote:
You having an aging population, a global economy that still is trying to recover from a global financial crisis caused by the banking sector and record low levels of tax paid by the rich - and you take this as a reason 'socialism' is failing you. It's like you can't see the forest for the trees. Shit is fucked up at the moment and social service programs are running at capacity; this is true for everywhere. People are out of work and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, (don't get me started on the boomer generation.) Of course social services are going to be stretched. It's like blaming a hospital for failing to keep up with an epidemic. I imagine America's social services will be particularly disadvantaged by the fact that much of the population fights tooth and nail to ensure that the rich still get their tax breaks - because they're the "job creators" right?
Well they're not creating jobs, as proven by the rate of unemployment, they're not being taxed and tax money is required. What's the answer here? The rich in America are taxed at an incredibly low rate, the lowest for a generation or two I believe, and the reason for this is because it was thought that they would use these tax savings create jobs. But they haven't. Instead of using tax savings to hire new employees they're giving the savings to themselves as bonuses. Meanwhile people are out of work and draining unemployment which the rich are no longer having a real hand in contributing to.
You're in a position where your social services are running out of money and you're giving tax money to people who don't have a need for it. And you're placing blame on the social services themselves?
The only place where the rich get a break is in investment taxes (capital gains). If that is their sole source of income--a la Warren Buffett's recent op-ed--their effective "income tax rate" is relatively low in comparison to someone whose primary source of income is from a job, rather than investments. That, and Social Security is capped at something like the first $90k or $100k of income.IRS wrote:
Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:
The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.
The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.
The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.
The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.
The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.
The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Hey, now that's an idea I like. Keep a program like SS in place, but you get to skip payments to the fund if you can show you've paid into your own retirement fund...Monkey Spanker wrote:
What's wrong with saving for your own retirement? My generation & those that follow were never going to get much of a state pension, we knew this, only the stupid didn't plan for this. In the UK you can pay less National Insurance & put that money into your own pension fund, its like an opt out of state pension.
edit:-awful spelling
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How does any of that have anything to do with the highlighted text, unless of course you are implying records began in 2006.FEOS wrote:
The highlighted portion is patently false. Has been shown to be false multiple times. How many times does it have to be shown before people accept it as a leftist talking point and nothing more?Ty wrote:
You having an aging population, a global economy that still is trying to recover from a global financial crisis caused by the banking sector and record low levels of tax paid by the rich - and you take this as a reason 'socialism' is failing you. It's like you can't see the forest for the trees. Shit is fucked up at the moment and social service programs are running at capacity; this is true for everywhere. People are out of work and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, (don't get me started on the boomer generation.) Of course social services are going to be stretched. It's like blaming a hospital for failing to keep up with an epidemic. I imagine America's social services will be particularly disadvantaged by the fact that much of the population fights tooth and nail to ensure that the rich still get their tax breaks - because they're the "job creators" right?
Well they're not creating jobs, as proven by the rate of unemployment, they're not being taxed and tax money is required. What's the answer here? The rich in America are taxed at an incredibly low rate, the lowest for a generation or two I believe, and the reason for this is because it was thought that they would use these tax savings create jobs. But they haven't. Instead of using tax savings to hire new employees they're giving the savings to themselves as bonuses. Meanwhile people are out of work and draining unemployment which the rich are no longer having a real hand in contributing to.
You're in a position where your social services are running out of money and you're giving tax money to people who don't have a need for it. And you're placing blame on the social services themselves?The only place where the rich get a break is in investment taxes (capital gains). If that is their sole source of income--a la Warren Buffett's recent op-ed--their effective "income tax rate" is relatively low in comparison to someone whose primary source of income is from a job, rather than investments. That, and Social Security is capped at something like the first $90k or $100k of income.IRS wrote:
Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:
The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.
The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.
The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.
The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.
The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.
The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.
Its a good argument for proving that lumping most taxation onto income is moronic.
Fuck Israel
As much as I oppose it philosophically, property tax always seemed like the best source of revenue for governments. Property is always owned by someone, even if the person is out of work and doesn't spend a dime in sales tax.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Whats wrong with splitting it between income, companies and consumption?
Fuck Israel
We already do.Dilbert_X wrote:
Whats wrong with splitting it between income, companies and consumption?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What you see us paying in taxes at the federal level is only a piece of the puzzle. Here in New York City, I pay state income tax and state sales tax. I also pay city income tax, city sales tax, and city property tax (via my rent). On top of this are state excise taxes on liquor, cigarettes, utilities (gas and electric), and communications plans (tv, internet and phones all have their own excise tax). I also pay tolls on our bridges and tunnels which are nominally for bridge and tunnel maintenance, but that money is diverted into subsidizing subway and bus fares. Oh, and I also have payroll taxes taken directly out of my paycheck to pay for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. After all is said and done, about half of my income (maybe more) ends up in the hands of the government.
Does this shed some light on why people in this country bitch about taxes?
Edit - this is also why there's so much pushback against the federal government when it attempts to expand itself. Everything attempted at the federal level is already done at the state level. We already pay for it. My state takes care of the roads, bridges, tunnels, railroads, etc. It already funds the public school system. It already pays for police officers and firefighters and EMTs. It even has it's own National Guard military units that it funds. Each state is already self sufficient. Expansion at the federal level just entails more cost, less efficiency, and more layers of bureaucracy.
Does this shed some light on why people in this country bitch about taxes?
Edit - this is also why there's so much pushback against the federal government when it attempts to expand itself. Everything attempted at the federal level is already done at the state level. We already pay for it. My state takes care of the roads, bridges, tunnels, railroads, etc. It already funds the public school system. It already pays for police officers and firefighters and EMTs. It even has it's own National Guard military units that it funds. Each state is already self sufficient. Expansion at the federal level just entails more cost, less efficiency, and more layers of bureaucracy.
Last edited by Jay (2011-08-22 07:29:26)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I would love to keep my money. Especially the money I am forced to pay into the Social Security Ponzi scheme (that I'll never see a dime from when I'm eligible).lowing wrote:
Chances are, they are collecting far less than they paid into the system. I don't blame them. Best solution is, you keep your money and do with it as you will, and I will keep mine. THat way, you don't have anything to bitch about regarding what I do with my money, it would be none of your business. Unless of course you are a liberal and think YOUR money is everyone else's business.
I don't mind paying taxes for essential state & national items. National defense, highway infrastructure, public fresh water infrastructure, and the like.
A certain few items are (theoretically) better served by a state or federal government, rather than private profit-driven industry.
I do, however, object to my tax money going to pay for other people's irresponsibility.
The Boomer generation tended to spend money on "The Good Life", rack up incredible amounts of debt (mortgages and credit cards), buy McMansions, ignore the education of their children, stuff their parents in nursing homes, and generally spend money on "Me Me Me" without setting aside money for their future retirement, future medical care, or future living expenses.
Remind me again why it's my responsibility to pay for their Social Security retirement fund, their Socialized Medicine (Obamacare), and their care & upkeep as retirees?
The life arc of the Boomers:
- Teenagers in the late '60's and into the 70's - free love, protest "the man", sex, drugs (peace, pot, and microdot LSD), and rock-n-roll, dodge the draft to avoid going to Viet Nam, Give up and lose a war for the 2nd time in US history.
- Young adults in the 80's - big hair, sex, drugs (cocaine and alcohol), and rock-n-roll. Elect Ronnie Raygun, build enough nukes to destroy the planet a few dozens of times over, completely fuck up our reputation with the middle east.
- Career adults in the 90's - Wall Street, send the Gen-X'ers off to fight in Iraq, drugs are baaaad m'kay, "show me the money", 401K's, sell off our infrastructure & manufacturing to China, elect "womanizer & party boy In Chief" to Whitehouse
- Middle age in the 2000's - Tech crash, buy more toys and cheap Chinese crap, send the Gen-X'ers & Gen Y'ers off to fight in Iraq (again), become staunch right-wing conservatives [wait - what about fighting "the man" when you were kids?]
- Late middle age in the 2010's - Planning for retirement - Obamacare, socialized medicine, make sure Social Security will last until the Boomers die off, send the Gen-X'ers & Gen-Y'ersoff to fight in Afghanistan
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-08-22 07:31:52)
lowing wrote:
Is it your position that if you can't save everyone, save no one? Perhaps you believe a society can actually tax itself into prosperity?
They can have their grandchildren's room in their kid's home, after the grandkids have gone off to college.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess your solution is to force those who don't have enough money saved to retire, to never retire. Yeah, that's a great idea. Have 70 year olds still working for a living. omg
If they pick up after themselves.
If they think they're going to live in their 5000 sq ft McMansions (or live in a $4000/month Assisted Living Condo), eat $15,000 a month in taxpayer funded prescription medication, and drive their Supersize SUVs on the taxpayer's dime - they're fucking insane.
My generation is going to be living much like my grandparent's generation.
The generation of living large is over.
Work your ass off, pay for food/shelter/education/transportation, take care of your family, save money for retirement, and be happy if you can take a week or two off a year.
Responsibility. It's this funny concept my grandparent's generation took rather seriously - and my parent's generation seems to have laughed at.