Older boomers won the pandemic after becoming a whopping $14 trillion richer, Fed data reveals—and Gen X is losing the race

[metta]

Older boomers won the pandemic after becoming a whopping $14 trillion richer, Fed data reveals—and Gen X is losing the race

Older boomers won the pandemic after becoming a whopping $14 trillion richer, Fed data reveals—and Gen X is losing the race

The famously economically beleaguered millennial generation ran really hard just to stay in place, according to Fed data.

finance.yahoo.com

#GenX #Boomer #millennials #GenZ

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Boomers set themselves up to win at everyone else's expense so of course a deadly pandemic that crippled the planet and killed millions was a perfect opportunity for them to rake in the dough they barely need cuz they already own and control everything. *sigh*

 

[rareboy]

I would note that boomers can't hold onto the wealth forever.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Things I didn't find in the article:

Are the dollars adjusted for inflation? The six times bit sounded likt it was not.

There was no historic trend of how much wealth was held by younger generations vs. older over the past two centuries. Older citizens have always accumulated wealth over time, much in contrast to the young who are building. That data doesn't exist, anywhere. So, it's easy to exclaim age disparity is new and shocking, but it sounds too much like the cheesy "stats" the big networks use to pump numbers with things like "over 24 million Americans are under flash flood warnings in the Northeast tonight." Riiiiight.

The data cited primarily imlicated home values skyrocketing, therefore increasing wealth without the possessors taking any action.

The same group, over 70, surely suffered losses in the 2007 crash, and again in the 2020, so where is that data?

No data about the hours worked or time served by the compared generations. Assumption is there should be equality without looking at the total factors.

In general, the article felt a bit George Floydy. There IS a reality that is wealth disparity, and generationally there are changes, but fanning the flames of age warfare feels very similar to the race war push. Total facts never seem to be relevant, only the selected ones to reinforce rationalizations and equivocations.

If 11% of Americans own disproportionate wealth, then elect legislators and executives to power who remove the privileges that favor the seniors. There's always whining and moaning about money buys elections, but there were prominent billionaires running on the GOP and Dem side for 2020 that never bumped the needle, so that lie doesn't work.

If you're not going to run the government, don't be surprised when those who DO vote favor their caucuses. Let's see the data about the age of voters and the age of government elected personnel.

 

[lockeroomguy]

Things I didn't find in the article:

Are the dollars adjusted for inflation? The six times bit sounded likt it was not.

There was no historic trend of how much wealth was held by younger generations vs. older over the past two centuries. Older citizens have always accumulated wealth over time, much in contrast to the young who are building. That data doesn't exist, anywhere. So, it's easy to exclaim age disparity is new and shocking, but it sounds too much like the cheesy "stats" the big networks use to pump numbers with things like "over 24 million Americans are under flash flood warnings in the Northeast tonight." Riiiiight.

The data cited primarily imlicated home values skyrocketing, therefore increasing wealth without the possessors taking any action.

The same group, over 70, surely suffered losses in the 2007 crash, and again in the 2020, so where is that data?

No data about the hours worked or time served by the compared generations. Assumption is there should be equality without looking at the total factors.

In general, the article felt a bit George Floydy. There IS a reality that is wealth disparity, and generationally there are changes, but fanning the flames of age warfare feels very similar to the race war push. Total facts never seem to be relevant, only the selected ones to reinforce rationalizations and equivocations.

If 11% of Americans own disproportionate wealth, then elect legislators and executives to power who remove the privileges that favor the seniors. There's always whining and moaning about money buys elections, but there were prominent billionaires running on the GOP and Dem side for 2020 that never bumped the needle, so that lie doesn't work.

If you're not going to run the government, don't be surprised when those who DO vote favor their caucuses. Let's see the data about the age of voters and the age of government elected personnel.

Very well stated. The article skipped over the fact that time is a leading factor in developing wealth. Small amounts of savings compound over time into wealth. The oldest generation will always be the wealthiest. In another 30 or 40 years, when the last of us boomers has kicked the bucket, someone is going to be complaining that Gen Xers have all the wealth.

 

[rareboy]

^ The next 2 decades will see a huge amount of wealth shift.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I do want to go on record, repeating my previous calls for a revolution, in some form, be it by election, catastrophic collapse, or violence.

The wealth disparity in the U.S. is obscene. There is no defending the megawealth held by the 1%. We should legislate the hell out of inheritance, and redistribute. Basically follow the British tax without the exemptions for the royal family.

But, the war is not against a generation. It is against the system that makes massive individual control of the nation's wealth possible. Capitalism can still be capitalism without the extremes. The incentive will still be there to earn and accumulate, but only to a much lower maximum. A few million will be plenty to allow an innovator or a job creator to be well rewarded without becoming an oligarch.

 

[Peloso]

In another 30 or 40 years, when the last of us boomers has kicked the bucket, someone is going to be complaining that Gen Xers have all the wealth.

Exactly.

Part of the problem of this blame game lies in the fact that people can't tell the difference between legitimate talking points and incendiary, poorly researched clickbait.

 

[unloadonme]

The wealth disparity in the U.S. is obscene. There is no defending the megawealth held by the 1%. We should legislate the hell out of inheritance, and redistribute. Basically follow the British tax without the exemptions for the royal family.

If you think that compulsory redistribution of wealth is a good thing, then the UK Inheritance Tax (IHT) system might superficially be something you could be interested in. Essentially, after the first £325,000, all of the assets in an estate are taxed at 40%. There are, however, a number of exemptions including anything passed to a spouse and gifts or settlements made more than seven years before the date of death.

The super-rich in practice pay comparatively little IHT. They can afford the best tax planning advice, they settle assets in trusts and generally structure their affairs in a way which minimises their IHT exposure. For instance, when the 6th Duke of Westminster died in 2016, there was virtually no IHT chargeable on his £10 billion estate.

How Inheritance Tax works: thresholds, rules and allowances

Inheritance Tax (IHT) is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die - exemptions, passing on property. Sometimes known as death duties.

www.gov.uk

Inheritance tax: why the new Duke of Westminster will not pay billions

The fact that Hugh Grosvenor’s estate is held in a trust means that his £9bn inheritance is likely to remain largely intact

www.theguardian.com

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I would note that boomers can't hold onto the wealth forever.

No, they'll find clumsy ways to "invest" in more industries that harm the planet and exploit labor.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Small amounts of savings compound over time into wealth.

That's cute.

 

[Peloso]

No, they'll find clumsy ways to "invest" in more industries that harm the planet and exploit labor.

Who is this "they" you speak of? Not every boomer is a capitalist industrialist billionaire CEO. SInce we're pointing fingers and misusing words like "they" I might point out that your generation is largely responsible for the shit show I wake up to every morning because you people sat out the 2016 election since "voting is violence" and Hillary failed to address some marginal societal woe that you all had your bikini bottoms in a bunch over on election day eve.

Perhaps if we started calling voting booths "gluten-free soy-sourced non binary safe spaces" you all might step inside and vote for once in your life. But not if you're left handed. We've got to do something about all those left handed people with their damned elbows bumping into mine. It's an unforgivable violation of my personal space. Burn them!!!

 

[NotHardUp1]

If you think that compulsory redistribution of wealth is a good thing, then the UK Inheritance Tax (IHT) system might superficially be something you could be interested in. Essentially, after the first £325,000, all of the assets in an estate are taxed at 40%. There are, however, a number of exemptions including anything passed to a spouse and gifts or settlements made more than seven years before the date of death.

The super-rich in practice pay comparatively little IHT. They can afford the best tax planning advice, they settle assets in trusts and generally structure their affairs in a way which minimises their IHT exposure. For instance, when the 6th Duke of Westminster died in 2016, there was virtually no IHT chargeable on his £10 billion estate.

How Inheritance Tax works: thresholds, rules and allowances

Inheritance Tax (IHT) is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die - exemptions, passing on property. Sometimes known as death duties.

www.gov.uk

Inheritance tax: why the new Duke of Westminster will not pay billions

The fact that Hugh Grosvenor’s estate is held in a trust means that his £9bn inheritance is likely to remain largely intact

www.theguardian.com

Well, that's both unsurprising and disappointing to learn. It must be a universal truth that the rich own the governments and will ever so.

I had seen so many Antiques Roadshows where the great country houses were given over for taxes that I thought the laws were still so.

 

[rareboy]

I have no problem with re-distribution....but like other smart people, I have devised a way of transferring wealth, not only to the undeserving sprog of my sis...but to all the causes we have spent decades supporting.

This is how a vast amount of Boomer wealth is going to be redistributed.

Besides what it takes to literally have someone take care of us 24/7 in our declining years...many are taking steps to ensure that others benefit from our hoarding of wealth.

 

[Rickrock]

NotHardUP1 I fully agree with your comments about redistribution of wealth, but the problems are finding a fair way to do it, and getting other people to agree.

 

[NotHardUp1]

NotHardUP1 I fully agree with your comments about redistribution of wealth, but the problems are finding a fair way to do it, and getting other people to agree.

The problem is much like the prison system. We're not trying to devise a fair system -- we're dealing with the consequences of an unfair system.

That goes to my point about limiting the accumulation of the control of wealth.

But, it is really not difficult to redistribute the benefits of a society's wealth. If vast amounts of stock earnings can be given to an individual, then much lesser amounts can be spread out across the employees of that company, or even across the population of the nation. Instead, the system is set to give executives ego-intoxicating, dick-hardening bonuses and massive stock options that unfairly reward them for the work of their underlings.

The wealth can be used to pay for things that citizens once funded: excellent public education, public hospitals, art and music, public works, conservation, research, and all the other things that benefit the commonwealth. Gee, what an outdated word that, "commonwealth."

Taxes have been increasingly sucked from the working class and the due from the richest has been manipulated, much like the Brits, to be untouchable. When you have Warren Buffet proclaiming to the world that his secretary pays more taxes than he does, you have every evidence you need of revolution, not merely reform.

But our nation last saw revolution when Southern plantation owners saw a threat to their riches from slavery threatened, and the time before that, when our Yankee cousins were threatened to lose their merchant riches from the tea tax. Can't have the rich not getting richer, can we? TO ARMS!!!

 

[NotHardUp1]

I have no problem with re-distribution....but like other smart people, I have devised a way of transferring wealth, not only to the undeserving sprog of my sis...but to all the causes we have spent decades supporting.

This is how a vast amount of Boomer wealth is going to be redistributed.

Besides what it takes to literally have someone take care of us 24/7 in our declining years...many are taking steps to ensure that others benefit from our hoarding of wealth.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced you are typical, or that all the donees of philanthropy are worthy. Major university rely on the donations, yet they hoard massive savings to buy more and more of the cities where they are. Some, like the Nature Conservancy, have vast chartered causes, but with many critics of who benefits.

But, assuming better stewards benefit, "many" doesn't give any comfort, as it isn't a quantity. Many criminals hide wealth in Bitcoin. Many people hate paying taxes. Many Americans steal. Many politicians are corrupt. It's an avoidance of proportionality.

The solution isn't to shrug, but to design wealth systems to empower non-wealthy board members to have the deciding votes, to put teeth in legislation to levy inheritance taxes until there isn't excessive inheritance. The arguments that capitalism must be unchecked to be an incentive are specious. People work hard to see the benefit of working hard in wealth, but they don't have to build the Taj Mahal.

 

[rareboy]

No we aren't typical and as a Director of non-profits over the years...I am ruthless and incredibly presbyterian in who I deem worthy.

And all our beneficiary trusts and causes have to prove themselves.

The only real worthies? Our cats.
.
They are the first named in our wills and are the only principals entirely protected.

And our end dispositions, outside of the land trusts, are all totally focused on specific areas of feline cancer research.

But it is still redistribution.

And is a whole different approach to trickle down.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

In general, the article felt a bit George Floydy. There IS a reality that is wealth disparity, and generationally there are changes, but fanning the flames of age warfare feels very similar to the race war push.

flag on the play. penalty for needless inflammatory anti-black rhetoric. 10 yards.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

People work hard to see the benefit of working hard in wealth, but they don't have to build the Taj Mahal. because every conceivable life necessity is monetized.

Corrected for honesty about capitalism.