Why Geezers Are the True Enemy

While Romney and Obama trade punches over who can best save Medicare and Medicaid, perhaps it's time to reaquaint ourselves with just how insane these programs are. 

Here is the original text from the Jan. 30, 2012 video:

"When you look at government policies, there's a massive transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor members of society toward the old and relatively rich members of society," says Veronique de Rugy, a Reason magazine columnist and economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

In 1970, de Rugy notes, transfers from the young to the old took up about 20 percent of the federal budget. In a few years, that figure will break the 50 percent barrier as the population ages and Social Security and Medicare ramp up. Those programs are paid for by payroll taxes that suck up around 15 percent of every dollar most workers will ever make.

Yet the #Occupy movement spends most of its energy railing against "the 1 Percent" richest Americans, whose wealth is not gained at the expense of the "99 Percent." Rather, it comes from providing goods and services that people want to consume.

As transfer payments to elderly Americans - irrespective of wealth or need - increase in absolute and relative terms, de Rugy argues that we should scrap entitlements and replace them instead with a "social safety net" that helps poor Americans of whatever age. "There's absolutely no reason to continue paying for lots of people who have accumulated wealth their entire lives," de Rugy tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.

About 3.40 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain and edited by Swain.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "There's absolutely no reason to continue paying for lots of people who have accumulated wealth their entire lives," de Rugy tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.

    But asking those oldsters to pay their own bills is just like stealing from the poor.

    We just need more penaltaxes on the billionaires.

  • Torontonian||

    One reason to continue paying them is that the government took money from their paychecks for decades and promised to pay them benefits on retirement.

  • ||

    And it would have worked too...if it wasn't for you meddling kids who stopped cranking out babies by the busload.

    Workers to Beneficiaries

  • AlmightyJB||

    We told you birth control was the devils work.

  • Bill||

    Yes, but then they need to stop paying them once they have received the inflation-adjusted amount of money they paid in. Unless they are below a certain income, then they get free stuff.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Why should they get what they were taxed? I won't. My children probably won't even have a country.

    I vote Carousel.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    One reason to continue paying them is that the government took money from their paychecks for decades and promised to pay them benefits on retirement.

    Guess what.

    Those politician lied to them.

    Get over it.

  • ||

    Actually, the money was taken and then immediately spent. Some of the items were helpful to them, some were not. A few examples: Wars, favors to preferred industry groups, welfare, etc.
    The oldsters who are now collecting said benefits were of voting age when this was occurring, so I have no sympathy for their arguments or yours.

  • ||

    This could be a good strategy - reminding young people that retirees are by far the wealthiest demographic in the country. The hard part is convincing those same young people to get off their dead ass and vote accordingly.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Logan's Run is the solution.

  • ||

    Wouldn't hurt to remind them that the retiring generation knows full well that they are going to be the recipients of these endless entitlements while passing the cost of them onto folks too young to vote against their creation.

    Boomers (and older) are pigs.

  • ||

    and maybe a bit

  • ||

    and maybe *save* a bit

  • nipplemancer||

    don't trust anyone over 65 - they want to steal your shit.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    One of my incessantly moaning liberal acquaintances told me a story about how unfair it was that someone he knew had to sell their house and move into a smaller place when they retired. Because that was their home and they paid for it, and you know, they should be able to stay there forever and pass it on to their children instead of cashing out the stored value it represented, dammit. Of course, taking out a home equity loan for a round the world ecotourism vacation would be completely appropriate

    He feels no compunction whatsoever about taking money from evil rich people and giving it to them, in order to keep them in that house, though; that's justice.

  • ||

    They probably have one or more leases on an Acura / Lexus / Mercedes etc. too. So unfair.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah nothing like seeing a high-performance Mercedes going down the freeway at 50mph in the passing lane. At least they don't have cell phones to their ears though.

  • ||

    Hearing aid gets in the way

  • ||

    He feels no compunction whatsoever about taking money from evil rich people and giving it to them, in order to keep them in that house, though; that's justice.

    We need to point out the immoral nature of these actions. I think, in a lot of the debates we have concerning the redistribution of wealth, we breeze over the fact that it's immoral to take that which you haven't earned. I don't know if we do it to avoid conflict or spare our opponents feelings, but we don't lay it out there enough.

    Don't need to be confrontational, but we do need to confront these people with FACT.

    If you believe it is okay to take that which you haven't earned from someone who has...YOU ARE AN IMMORAL PERSON!

    The ends DO NOT justify the means.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I do point it out. They don't care. It's not "fair" that some people are rich and some people are poor. They would probably vote Bain Dictator for life given the chance.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And they refuse to think about the unintended (intended) consequences of the means because that would rquire the capacity for independent thought as opposed to parroting.

  • ||

    At which point, we can argue that there are ways to raise the standard of living of the poor WITHOUT being immoral in the process.

    They need deprogramming.

  • ||

    I went and saw that the other night. What a yawn fest. Bain and the people of Manhattan were indistinguishable. It's really hard to root for a side when you're hoping they both lose.

  • Sudden||

    We need to point out the immoral nature of these actions. I think, in a lot of the debates we have concerning the redistribution of wealth, we breeze over the fact that it's immoral to take that which you haven't earned.

    When discussing the entitlement bomb, it becomes a bit more difficult to make this case.

    The fall back of the Boomers and older is "I paid into it my entire life." On top of that, a lot of Boomers retiring now can credibly claim that they paid more into the system than they'll receive in benefit.

    Of course, every time this occurs, I try to remind them that most of the money they paid into the SS and MC systems never actually went to those systems but was actually used to fund the federal govt spending above and beyond general tax revenues and was replaced with govt securities (the functional equivalent of IOUs in a suitcase a la Dumb Dumber) and those securities would have to be repaid by my generation as they came due out of general income tax revenues. It falls on deaf ears.

    The fact is that old people, even the ones that actually understand the way the system worked in this regard (my dad for example) still maintain, "fuck you, I paid in" even though they know deep down that most of what they paid in just subsidized all the other govt goodies doled out in the 70s and 80s.

  • ||

    I call bullshit on the whole claim that they paid more in than they receive.

    Social Security benefits vs. taxes

    No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in. But those on the high end of the wage scale pay proportionally more in taxes than the average wage earner, not surprisingly.

    Example: A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).

    A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

    I agree with them. They deserve EVERY DIME they paid in...and not one penny more.

    Does anyone have a link supporting the claim that the taxes equal or exceed the benefits?

  • Sudden||

    The analysis you provided is flawed for a few reasons. First, although the author makes a point of putting the income used for the taxes into current 2010 dollars, he fails to apply any reasonable time value of money analysis on the amount paid in. On top of that, the analysis fails to account for the employer match.

  • ||

    Incorrect.

    Notes

    Notes: All amounts are in constant 2011 dollars as noted, adjusted to present value at age 65 using a 2 percent real interest rate. Each calculation assumes survival until age 65 and then adjusts for chance of death in all years after age 65. It also assumes that benefits scheduled in law will be paid even if trust funds are exhausted. Workers are assumed to work every year from age 22 to age 64 and retire at age 65 or the Normal Retirement Age. An average-wage worker earns the average wage in the economy every year, based on Social Security’s measure of the “average wage.” The low-wage worker earns 45 percent of the average wage, while the high-wage worker earns 160 percent of the average wage. The tax-max wage worker earns at the taxable maximum every year. Medicare numbers are net of premium, other than the new premium tax on some high earners.

    calculations

  • ||

    Time value of money assumes the money in question can earn interest.

    Where exactly are the SS taxes invested to earn said interest?

  • ||

    Incorrect.

    I have not read the document thoroughly but who exactly is satisfied with a 2% real rate of return? And I see no mention of the other half of my money that my employers "contribute"?

    It is charming that you and the authors are confident that Social Security taxes will not go up in the future, benefits will not go down, retirement ages will not be pushed out and there will be no means testing. Can I count on you to make good on any changes?

  • ||

    Click on calculations and then scroll down to:

    Do your tax estimates take into consideration the matching Medicare contributions made by employers?

    Yes. The tax calculations assume that the individual pays both the employee and employer portion of the tax. Most economists believe that workers essentially bear the burden of this tax since the more employers pay, the less cash wages workers receive.

    (I assume "tax calculations" were the same for SS and Medicare)

    Again, were is you SS invested so that you make interest on it? Time value of money wrt SS is meaningless, because it isn't invested. Congress spent it.

    Now if you had the option to invest it yourself, we can talk.

  • ||

    Time value of money wrt SS is meaningless, because it isn't invested.

    Who here is arguing otherwise? The article you are using to "call bullshit" is predicated on a ridiculously low rate of return. A deliberately lowballed growth rate is the only way your point can be made. Otherwise why use any rate of return?

  • Dylan||

    None of this matters. Not one bit. They were robbed, the money was spent, there is no getting it back. If they planned for retirement thinking that they were getting that money back, then that's their own damn fault for not realizing it was a Ponzi scheme.

    You can't argue about who gets the stolen money because there is none. Just a bunch of promises to collect taxes in the future (US Treasuries).

  • Marshall Gill||

    Otherwise why use any rate of return?

    I agree. Since the money was spent instantly on the people who paid it, why the fuck should they get "interest" on non-existent money?

    The fact is that the taxes paid to social security were immediately spent on the population at the time. So every fucking person has received what they "paid in". Indeed, since we are a gazillion dollars in debt, they received MORE than they "paid in".

    So they got their money then, plus they borrowed billions. Now it is dependent upon the productive to continue this until their death even though bankruptcy will occur momentarily.

  • ||

    Who is this "they" you speak of?

  • Brutus||

    There's no rhyme or reason to any of it, and certainly not enough money in the world to pay for it all.

    The ultimate result is a real-world replay of Monty Python's "Dennis Moore" sketch, with highwaymen stopping coaches and redistributing the valuables evenly amongst the passengers.

  • ||

    Stupid bitch...stupid bitch.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Bring on the Death Panels, I say!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    we breeze over the fact that it's immoral to take that which you haven't earned. I don't know if we do it to avoid conflict or spare our opponents feelings, but we don't lay it out there enough.

    This particular person is a retired teacher who is pretty much a union hall DNC talking point broadcast station. He likes to cite HuffPo in any discussion. The other day he was claiming Paul Ryan wants to de-fund the national parks. He's much too fucking dumb to swayed by reason (nyuk nyuk nyuk).

  • Mike M.||

    While I agree with the gist of the piece and that the senior citizens can be politically selfish at times, the blanket statement made in the title bothers me. Almost all of us are going to be old one day.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I also think anytime people can get money back from the government that was taken from them in the first place without their persmission their going to do so and not feel bad about it. Kind of like the idea that states should opt out of federal program money that they disagree with. if they can opt out of paying for them too, that's a legitimate argument but that's not an option. We shouldn't forget who the real people to blame are, and that's the politicians.

  • ||

    I have no problem with them accepting the checks as long as they don't vote to perpetuate the system, but by and large they do.

  • ||

    I agree Ap. Completely wrong to take away what has been promised, despite the wrongness of the program from the beginning.

    The solution is to realize it is unsustainable and come to grips with the fact that younger generations aren't going to get the benefits their parents had. It needs to be completely phased out over a reasonable period of time.

  • Ted S.||

    Isn't this to what Paul Ryan is to an extent trying to do with Medicare?

  • ||

    It is, but if one was to ask the left, he wants to kill everyone over the age of 50, grind them up and feed them to their grandchildrenz.

  • Calidissident||

    Not really. Ryan doesn't want to phase out Medicare just change it to a voucher program. I'm not sure how that would actually save if implemented, not to mention the newest version of the plan still allows people to choose traditional Medicare over the alternative

  • ||

    I am going to be old someday...but I'm not going to demand the youth become destitute to support me.

    And that is EXACTLY what these fuckers did. They perpetuated a Ponzi scheme of which they are the beneficiaries at the expense of following generations. And you didn't need to be a rocket surgeon to predict the outcome.

  • Brutus||

    I've already told my kids that, to the very best of my ability, I will send them the money from my Social Security payments each month as restitution for the money stolen from them each month in SS taxes.

  • Homple||

    I take it that you spent no money in feeding, housing, and educating them.

  • RickC||

    Late to this discussion. Not to speak for Brutus, but the decision to have children and all the obligations incurred therein, were voluntarily entered into by Brutus and his Missus. His children had no say in having portions of their income forcibly taken to pay for their parents' and others' retirement.

    I feel dumber even having to point this out.

  • ||

    "I take it that you spent no money in feeding, housing, and educating them."
    You demand restitution from your kids for creating them and being held responsible for their upbringing for 18+years?

  • Homple||

    No. I just point out that parents have invested much time, money, and effort and given up nice stuff to raise their children and might consider that they have done quite enough for them by the time they have grown up and left home.

  • Mike M.||

    I agree with you 100% that the senior citizens ought to have a lot more consideration for the future generations of this country. Sadly, many of them just don't.

    It infuriates me to no end how F.D.R. and the liberal scumbags who run this country have successfully pitted the generations against each other this way.

  • Gladstone||

    It infuriates me to no end how F.D.R. and the liberal scumbags who run this country have successfully pitted the generations against each other this way.

    Funny wasn't Social Security supposed to stop that sort of thing? You know no longer having to worry about your aged parents?

    That's said I'm not exactly too enthused with Reason engaged in such explicit generational warfare. What better to be "hip" and "cool" by bashing the old fogeys I guess.

    Also you are going to be old eventually and will be complaining about the youth not listening to you so I never have been too fond of "fuck the old people."

    I mean look at how the baby boomers have ignored their "old people suck" attitude once they got old.

    Nevermind that the Arbiters of youth culture do not find libertarianism to be "hip" since that means the youth won't be able to get free stuff.

    I always found it weird that the youth are being screwed over the state yet they seem to marching for more handouts.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Thank the socialist education system.

    They spend 12-18 years brainwashing the chilrenz with propaganda and operant conditioning.

    It takes a period of years to decades to undue that brainwashing, and many people never overcome it.

  • Gladstone||

    Interesting that the classical liberals supported the public school system because it was an attack on the Roman Catholic Church and to create an educated liberal populace. Look how well that turned out.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They decided my obligations, and that I was to pay to support them in retirement, decades before I was born.

    That's fucking bullshit.

    Either support yourself via money that you've had the opportunity to earn over the course of your working life, or get the fuck out. But they've already decided, before I even had an opportunity to put in my $.02, that I was obliged to pay for them

    Fuck old people.

  • ||

    this.

  • MamaLiberty||

    The problems are theft, coercion and lack of personal responsibility. Age, gender and national origin are not relevant in any meaningful way. Trying to find other people to blame is one reason the disaster keeps getting bigger and more destructive all the time.

    Own your life, be responsible for it. Stop the theft.

  • Bill||

    We need a libertarian super-hero to get us out of this mess and explain clearly to everyone why they are wrong.

    We need a catchy moniker for said super-hero.

    Something like MamaLiberty!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Meanwhile, President 0 is bleating about how there are no teachers left anywhere; they've all been laid off! If we could just spend another ten thousand federal dollars per student we could make those little fuckers smart as whips.

    Why do you hate Society's children, America?

  • OldMexican||

    Meanwhile, President 0 is bleating about how there are no teachers left anywhere; they've all been laid off!

    But why would he say a thing like that? Just because he's on campaign does not mean you have to indulge in bombast! Or... does it???

  • OldMexican||

    Medicare? Social Security? Fuggedaboutit! says Gary North.

    I posted an article on my [...] site on the increase in the real debt of the U.S. government over the last year. The increase was $11 trillion[...]

    Impossible? Not at all. The annual increase – the deficit – will be even larger next year, and larger still the year after.

    This refers to the unfunded liabilities of the government. These are the price tags of political promises which politicians have made over the years for which there is no money available to fulfill. The expert here is Prof. Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University. His most recent report says that total unfunded liabilities went from $211 trillion a year ago to $222 trillion this year.

    The biggest source of future red ink will be Medicare. In second place is Social Security.

    How can the government pay off these obligations? It can't. The possibility does not exist. The government needs a spare $222 trillion to invest in private companies. This investment must make a return of at least 5% to provide the money needed to pay meet the government's obligations. There is no $222 trillion available, and no capital markets large enough to absorb $222 trillion.

    Conclusion: the U.S. government will default.


    Here's what he's talking about: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....llion.html

  • sarcasmic||

    Hyper-inflation will come before default.

  • ||

    There is another way.

    War.

    Does anyone else think the situation in Europe could escalate to WW III?

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't.
    The only country with a legitimate gripe is Germany, and it is our military that provides their national defense.
    France is still a nation of pussies, and the once proud British spirit has been tamed thanks to the welfare state.
    The only type of war I could foresee in Europe would the the civil kind.

  • Mood Aplut||

    Tell that to the Brits who fought in Iraq and AFG...

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think that the general population could handle a war, not the individuals fighting it. Compared to fifty years ago anyway.

  • ||

    Not to diminish their tenacity, but...:

    "Peak during Major Combat Operations (March/April 2003): 46,000 (including those stationed outside of Iraq in support of the operation)
    At the end of May 2003: 18,000
    At the end of May 2004: 8,600
    At the end of May 2005: 8,500
    At the end of May 2006: 7,200
    At the end of May 2007: 5,500
    At the end of May 2008: 4,100 (in southern Iraq)
    At the end of May 2009: 4,100 (in southern Iraq)
    At the end of Jan 2010: 150"

    Methinks they lack the veteran prowess to put up a prolonged fight. God forbid it lasts more than 3 months.

  • Mood Aplut||

    None of the Eurozone countries have a real military anymore. (UK isn't in the eurozone.) As John stated a few weeks ago, it would be a slap fight.

  • ||

    I'm having a hard time imagining how it could unfold, but just because none of the EU countries have a legitimate military doesn't mean those who do couldn't become involved.

    You know, national interests and all. Zod knows, we NEVER stick out nose in another country's business. Russia? China? India?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Hyper-inflation will come before default.


    Gary North makes a compelling case that the government will not resort to hyperinflation for the simple reason that hyperinflation only works in the short term (like so many Latin American political leaders found out the hard way during the 70's and 80's) as the money becomes worthless enough that not even the government can buy goods or services. People simply stop using the government's money and resort to barter.

    No, the likelier scenario is that government will default from its obligations and leave several million geezers hanging out to dry.

  • Dylan||

    "...that hyperinflation only works in the short term..."

    Which is precisely why I think we will have hyperinflation. When have our leaders EVER thought long term? (I also think they will outlaw and try to collect any alternate currency.)

    On a separate thought, I've been thinking that default is the best (and moral) option. Why should the young and the not-yet-born have to pay (through inflation or higher taxes) for the debt of the old? They are innocent. Those holding US Treasuries should get nothing. Loaning money to someone who promises to pay you back by stealing from others shouldn't be rewarded.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Gary North makes a compelling case that the government will not resort to hyperinflation for the simple reason that hyperinflation only works in the short term (like so many Latin American political leaders found out the hard way during the 70's and 80's)

    Those countries were all banana republics, highly dependent on exporting agricultural products and importing manufactured goods.

    The US is in the historically unique position of having the worlds reserve currency (and a fiat on at that). This gives us the potential for destruction orders of magnitude greater than any 20th century country that experienced hyperinflation.

    The parallel will be more like the Roman Dominate period or theYuan dynasty than Argentina or Hungary.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No, the likelier scenario is that government will default from its obligations and leave several million geezers hanging out to dry.

    I'm not convinced that geezers deserve anything better.

  • califernian||

    It's not actually a default, as in the case with debt. There is not debt, no contract, no obligation whatsoever for congress to pay social security benefits to anyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about the social contract that everyone signs in blood at birth?

  • califernian||

    Oh that. Right. I'm digging around for my copy here somewhere.

    Just give me a minute....

  • Sudden||

    Yes and no, therein lies the irony. Although SS benefits aren't actually a accrued debt, the treasuries that have been floated (some $6 trillion) out of the SS fund are an actual debt obligation and must be repaid (even if not subsequently paid out as SS bennies) and therefore would be considered a default if we didn't pay them (regardless of the fact that we'd be paying ourselves back).

  • sarcasmic||

    Last year my aunt's dog swallowed something, I don't remember what, and needed all kinds of surgery to keep it alive. Her husband retired as the vice president of some window making company, and they are not hurting for cash by any stretch of the imagination.

    I recall that it amounted to her entire year's worth of SS benefits.

    I pay payroll taxes so she can take her dog to the vet, while if it was my dog I would have had to let it die because there's no fucking way I can justify spending that kind of cash on a pet when I can't afford to get the head gasket job done on my stupid Subaru.

  • Virginian||

    Why do you hate dogs, sarcasmic?

    Or should I say.....Mitt?

  • ||

    this is just the ripple effects of the injustice of your youthful indiscretion DUI arrest/conviction

    you'd be rolling in head gasket money if you could have invested that cash back in the day vs. spending it on damage to the vehicle that hit you!

    clearly, DUI is racist, too

  • ||

    How can you be so insensitive to the generation who won the Vietnam war and gave us Disco.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yet the #Occupy movement spends most of its energy railing against "the 1 Percent" richest Americans, whose wealth is not gained at the expense of the "99 Percent." Rather, it comes from providing goods and services that people want to consume.

    Uggh, really? We can be opposed to socialism and still recognize that there's a lot of the wealthiest people who got that way not through the honest labor, but through being little more than high-class con artists.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Who decides what constitutes honest labour? Occupiers?
    No thanks. Your dressed-up marxism is still marxism.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    You know who else liked dressing up...

  • Sudden||

    Toddlers and Tiaras?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh right, I keep forgetting the only two options are Marxism or Anarchy. We can be against redistribution of wealth without having to pretend the Goldman Sachs is really Rearden Steel when they rip off their customers.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The difference is that GS's customers sign up for whatever they get.

  • Virginian||

    ^This

    I don't see anyone arguing that Goldman Sachs is a moral organization. It's not defending fraud to point out that extortion, murder, kidnapping and theft are all worse crimes.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Uh no. If I hire you to provide me financial advice and you deliberately give me bad advice to make money for someone else, I'm not getting what I signed up for.

  • ||

    speaking of paid in to SS versus what people get out.

    depends on the demographic. black males, for example, get ripped off (proportionally speaking) compared to white males and white females, paying in far more vs. what they get back compared to those groups. there are a # of reasons for this, among them longevity rates.

    maybe NYPD stop and frisk is behind this disparity. Social Security is RACIST !!!

  • Gladstone||

    Thinking it over I think the big reason that the "youth" don't seem all that up in arms about Social Security is because the "youth" activists want Social Security too. I mean they want free stuff now so they are obviously going to want it when they retire. Like how can you want free college tuition and to retire at 40 or 50 and then bitch about Social Security?

  • Homple||

    There is much in what you say.

  • Saneandbalanced||

    Geezer-abuse of medicare exists. I've witnessed it at Florida swimming pools when seniors speak of getting 5 or 10 different medical opinions for the same ailment. I've also heard young and able-bodied people brag about getting medicaid or other forms of government assistance to "supplement" their regular pay (these are folks who typically work off the books, but not always. Some even have thriving businesses.) I don't like seeing my hard-earned tax dollars go to these parasites but I don't think the answer lies in demonizing seniors or any other group. Let's tighten the rules to prevent abuse of government aid and really enforce the rules.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Geezers

    Here's a thing I've tried to impress on my larvae.

    For most of your life you're going to be what the hip young folks call 'old'. That hip, young period in your life is tiny.

    Always be aware of that--and take special notice when the people railing about 'old people' are what you'd call 'old' yourself. Because then somethings up.

    Like this--you have been forced to pay into this 'system' all your life, but now that it's your turn to get that money back--and that is the nature of the bargain however anyone wants to put it--you are a leech.

    Geezers aren't the problem. The problem, as always, is government.

  • Bruce Hall||

    Simple solution: call a re-do.

    The government does not provide social security and its portion of Medicare [recipients still pay monthly premiums and pay for all supplemental insurance]. In return, the government does not receive taxes from invested retirement funds from anyone over 65. Win-win.

  • dance.fever||

    She mentions nothing about the cost of health care. When I retire, my employer will not offer me any health care benefits. Not offering health benefits to retirees is the norm now in the private sector. Even if I save lots of money, my nest egg could easily be wiped out by health care costs in my senior years. To buy individual insurance in New York, where I live, is insanely expensive. A halfway decent plan would cost me almost $800/month. Even basic diagnostic tests cost an arm and leg these days. For instance, a few years ago I received a bill from a testing lab that tested my blood from my annual physical. The bill was for $1,100. Luckily my insurance paid for most of that, but it's indicative of how costly health care is today. My friend had gallbladder surgery a couple of years ago, which was performed as an outpatient procedure. The bill was over $60,000 dollars. What good is it to have decent hospital asnd skilled physicians if you go broke using those services? Costs are out of control.

  • Homple||

    Well, hey, see above for all the folks anxious for the geezers to die to save them from paying taxes.

    How long before they get the idea that people causing high medical costs ought to die off also, to save them money on taxes and insurance premiums?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement