Assault On The Young
I have made the claim for years that both Social Security and Medicare are unfair and counterproductive because they transfer money for the lesser wealthy cohort, the younger, to the more wealthy cohort, the older. The financial demographics are indisputable. Under the heading of “druthers” I would opt for both entitlements to be means based welfare programs over the current blanket entitlement system.
Robert Samuelson makes a supporting case:
One of our long-running political stories is the economic assault on the young by the old. We have become a society that invests in its past and disfavors the future. This makes no sense for the nation, but as politics, it makes complete sense. The elderly and near elderly are better organized, focus obsessively on their government benefits, and seem deserving. Grandmas and Grandpas command sympathy.
[...]
Comes now the House-passed health care “reform” bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of younger Americans. That’s much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those aged 60-64 is four to five times greater than those 18-24. So, the young would overpay for insurance which — under the House bill — people must buy: 20- and 30-somethings would subsidize premiums for 50- and 60-somethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)
Read the whole thing.
The worst thing about this trend is that we are not doing this to a bunch of unknown strangers. The ones who will continue to suffer through all this are our own children and grandchildren. What is the matter with us? As individuals, most of us would give up our own life so that one of them could live or we would and sometimes do give them all that we have but as a society we continue to “sock it to ‘em.”
Wow, even the blonde gets it.
It used to be the addicts cut themselves out the SS pool by leaving this worldly place early.
Now it looks like we’ll be putting them on life support.
Dave, just a notion you might cotton to:
Few things are more insulting to reason than equating ‘being unfair’ with assault, rape, murder, lynching, holocaust or any of the other extreme terms used that are imprecise and meant to be emotional. Look at Blonde’s comment. ‘WE MUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!’
Don’t get me wrong, I still think you’re every bit as much of a jerk as you think I am. But I don’t go around confusing mob-market demand with a beating, at least not any more. So I do wonder, why do you?
Wulfgar, are you always such a PC pussy?
Don’t fuss with me, pissant, just ’cause you’re in the wrong here. You know well that claiming assault (HOLOCAUST!) is an insult to the real fricking thing. Words have power and meaning. You’ve said the same and more, kitten, so you might ask yourself, are you always such a PC pussy? I don’t go around confusing mob-market demand with a beating. You do. Why is that, cupcake? Are you scared of the truth?
I’m not wrong. You don’t like the language. I don’t care. You might spend a little time with the dictionary. Assault means, among other things, an attack.
Get over you indignation. It’s petty.
Dave, that’s why I think you’re a wanker. You can’t even admit when you use emotionally laden terms to talk about the simplest stuff. Your whole line of work is predicated on “assaulting” the young. Investments are to the point of profiting on those who spend … those who can, the young. The young buy goods. The young buy you profits. The young drive the economy. The young are necessary for the assault you claim they shouldn’t ’suffer’ from yet feed the very engine you desire. You are wrong. Your language bespeaks violence, “assault”. And yet you profit from that very thing, as you speak it. Petty, not so likely. Accurate? Right to the fricking point. Get over your bullshit, Dave. Diminutives don’t become you when you’re so obviously self-interested.
Since you have no idea what you’re talking about as to the economics I’ll let you go play with yourself. I’m done responding to idiots.
You haven’t responded with anything sensible yet, so I’ll accept your capitulation. Bu Buy, Dave.
Dave- If he had any understanding of the issue or a clean conscience he wouldn’t be arguing debate stylistics.
Wolfpack, I don’t know that he doesn’t have a clean conscience but I do know that, from his statement above, he doesn’t have a clue – like, you know, the reason consumption goes down with age is because you’ve accumulated most of the fixed assets you wanted when you were young.
A tax is a tax is a tax – that you distinguish the moneys raised based on the name of the tax is interesting. If you want to follow through with that thought, consider the following:
The payroll tax is applied only against wages below $106,800, exempting all high wages earners and all passive income. It is therefore a tax on working stiffs, who are not exactly your constituency.
If you want to suggest reforms, I’m all ears, but start there.
But you and I both know that if given your druthers, you would eliminate the program. So start with directness, and end with your real desires.
First, I’ve been direct for years. My writing is full of calls to make these entitlements means tested.
And you can stop the BS about “my constituency.” This either proves that you don’t (or can’t) understand my writing or you don’t read it. I have always held that the tax code screws the working poor and I have written about it endlessly. Get off your crap.
My crap your crap we all gotta a lotta crap crap …
I don’t think the working poor are screwed, given the personal exemption and standard deduction coupled with the generous EIC for people with children, a less generous one refunding payroll tax for non-parents. It’s when you scale out of the EIC brackets and into unprotected brackets that the screwing begins.
Depending on how you look at it, of course. I look at is being, in effect, flat taxation at a high rate for every income level beyond the 15% brackets.
You mean that things like the fairness of the mortgage deduction – providing a bigger marginal tax break the more money you make doesn’t screw people in lower marginal tax brackets. How about the 2nd home mortgage deduction and how fair that is in the face of people who can’t even afford get the first mortgage deduction. How about the disparate tax treatment of insurance premiums. Oh, and if your lucky enough to have an employer sponsored retirement plan, you can contribute a significantly higher portion of your income on a tax deferred basis. Those are the high points but certainly not all.
Nope, the tax system screw the working poor and the lower middle class. Sorry, I left them out.
Which was precisely what I argued, Dave. The young pay your way because they purchase what you advise people to invest in. Thank you for agreeing with me. Bu Buy …
Breathtakingly clueless.
That’s not a response, Dave. You don’t have one, do you?
Yes, I have one. But I’m not going to argue with idiots any more. You’re an economic moron and you can educate yourself.
I seem to have been more aware than you, and you work in the industry. The young spending pays for the elders to invest. That’s what we’ve agreed, right? If I’m a moron, what does that say about you? And I notice that you still can’t face the original idea I brought up. You confuse mob-market demand with a beating. Do you ever care to deal with that point? Of course not. You’d lose.
You seem to be so steeped in stupidity that I will, recalcitrantly, give you a little food for thought.
A) If we tax the younger less and tax the older more does that leave more or less money for older people to invest?
B) If younger people have more money could they not invest more of it with, say, me?
C) Assume that all of the economic externalites are gone (money multipliers, marginal tax rates, currency exchange differentials, regulations, etc.) and we look only at a static money supply moving through the economy. If we shift money from one cohort to another, what does that do to net investable cash? Let me give you a hint – nothing. It like taking water out of one end of the pool and pouring it back in the other.
In other words, moron, there is no net benefit to me as a money manager. I benefit when the economy grows, period. Just because most of my customers are retired now doesn’t mean that my client mix would stay the same if the economic paradigm was different. Get it, stupid?
Now, you’re the one that is confused about the word assault it seems. Let’s use some modern colloquialisms to show just what a PC pussy you are:
Assault on our civil liberties
verbally assaulted
assault on my senses
viral assault
But your little mind doesn’t allow for the use of the language beyond apparent compulsion to flap your jaw.
Now, I’n done arguing with idiots.
Yeah. “I’n” ain’t gonna argue with idjits either. “It” like taking arguments out of one end of the pool and throwing them away. Guess what, moron, there is a net investment benefit when people buy. As a “money manager” you should see that clearly, but you’d rather dismiss than engage. Fine.
Assault, as a word, against concepts means exactly what you state it does. You didn’t use it that way, cupcake. You used it as a word against people, the young. Quit waffling, ass. Use your words in the way intended, and quit trying to dismiss obvious objection. Otherwise, I guess “I’n” can quit arguing with idiots.
Just like I said.