Occupy Wall Street

Why Geezers Are the True Enemy of the Occupy Movement

|

"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.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos. And subscribe to this channel to get automatic updates when new material goes live.

NEXT: Mitt Romney on Track to Win Florida, E.U. Leaders Almost Reach a Budget Deal, U.S. Drones Anger Iraqi Officials: P.M. Links

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.

  1. Damn, I can’t believe Reason actually agrees with me on this.

    Medicare is a scam and either you

    1- kill it entirely
    2- give it to all

    Neither is optimal but we deserve less than optimal as a society.

    1. ‘we deserve less than optimal as a society’

      Perhaps. But what about the individual who wants no opt out of this scheme?

      1. You can’t get out. You are trapped. That is the one immutable rule. You are the payment base.

        So?

        1?
        or
        2?

        1. 3. Kill it entirely by giving it to all.

          That is likely to happen anyway.

          1. OK, this is progress.

            Medicare for all with co-pays and deductibles – JUST LIKE THE REAL WORLD.

            Watch the old crowd become cost sharers then.

        2. Hey how is it going with the Christian Taliban you say is after you, I see you are still alive. Please tell everyone here why the should listen to a paranoid little shit like you.

    2. Bi-sexual information?Seeking for the people have the same sexual orientation. please consult the site —datebi*cO’m—, you will find the like-minded people!

  2. OK wow that makes a lot of sense dude. WOw.

    1. MikeP is anonbot?

      1. Only on the side.

      2. We are all anonbot.

        1. Or cathrine.

  3. We’re mere years from Logan’s Run.

    1. Except in reverse! Or something.

    2. If Jenny Agutter is there, count me in.

  4. ‘transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor members of society toward the old and relatively members of society’

    typo? (missing ‘wealthy’?

    1. Either that or missing “more likely to vote”.

      1. ‘sexier’? ‘more regularly bathing’?

        1. No mention of the diabeetus. Figures.

    2. “typo? (missing ‘wealthy’?”

      No. A glaring example of othering.

    3. Missing punctuation?

      1. Yes, I am. Thanks, Mr. Bob or may I call you Anal?

        1. Of your two suggestions, I prefer number two.

          1. Anal is where number two comes from.

  5. Why Geezers Are the True Enemy of the Occupy Movement all non-geezers.

    1. What about future geezers?

  6. 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.

    Or replace it with nothing…

    1. Right, I was going to say..what social net? Bootstraps or die.

  7. Old geezers have been paying into all of the worthless government programs all their life. So now let’s shit on them!

    1. I’m good with that. so long as I get mine and some other’s without, like, having to work ‘n’ stuff.

    2. I’m not shitting on anyone, I just oppose continuing to allow geezers to shit on me. Not my fault if you bought the SS as a trust fund bullshit and didn’t plan for retirement on your own.

      1. Few of us “bought into the SS as a trust fund bullshit”. It’s not like payroll taxes are voluntary. They’ve been taken from my checks for 34 years and no one ever asked for my permission.

        There’s no question that we need major reform for SS/Medicare but don’t try to tell me that I’m “robbing” the younger generation when I retire in another ~20 years and I want to get something back for all my taxes.

        (And yes, I’m also saving up to take care of myself because I don’t trust the government to meet their end of the SS/Medicare bargain)

        1. You are in fact robbing me to pay for your retirement. If you didn’t buy the trust fund bullshit then you must know that you need to rob me to pay for your checks because the money you “put in” has already been spent.

          1. Excellent. I do not have to pay for you or your childrens education, unemployment, health care, food stamps, housing costs, birth control or rehab any longer. Capish? Neither should we be required to contribute to public infrastructure so the public mooches can coast on it.

          2. When are you assholes going to start worrying about the unearned transfer payments??? You know like food stamps, welfare, rent subsidies and all the other payments to people who have never worked or worked very little.

        2. “There’s no question that we need major reform for SS/Medicare but don’t try to tell me that I’m “robbing” the younger generation when I retire in another ~20 years and I want to get something back for all my taxes.”

          Why can’t we tell you that? That’s exactly what you’ll be doing. The fact that our parents robbed from us doesn’t make it okay for us to rob from our kids.

        3. Uh, you are robbing the younger generation. Look at the tax raises that are coming just to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent and tell me with a straight face no one’s subsidizing you. You need a total payroll tax rate of around 15% (7.5% you, 7.5% employer) just to get SS on sound footing meeting current benefit promises, and Medicare is even worse.

          It doesn’t even matter whether you just want your money back. The government doesn’t have it any more. They spent it. If bailing out seniors is part of a package to allow my generation to opt out of SS entirely, so be it, but there is no lockbox; it’s all been spent on old folks, blowing people up and payouts to cronies.

          1. “The government doesn’t have it anymore”. Under this logic anyone who holds a government bond is “robbing” the next generation when they expect to get paid. When China buys treasury notes the money isn’t set aside, it’s spent and it’s gone.

            China expects to get paid back – that was the deal the US Government made when they sold the bond. If the US defaults on those bonds then our entire economy will collapse.

            Sadly, I don’t expect to get paid everything that the US Government promised when they starting taking payroll taxes from me. However, I do expect to get something. If they completely default on Social Security for Generation X, then today’s Occupy protests will look tame. Gen X won’t be able to retire in their late 50’s like the Boomers are doing, we’re more likely to work until around 70 but they’ll still be healthy enough to riot in the streets.

            It’s hard to sell “scrap the whole thing” to people who have been paying in for over 30 years. That’s the political reality that libertarian ideas face.

            Institutions that libertarians would like to eliminate (national science foundation, social security, publicly funded higher ed, etc.) can’t be wiped out overnight. The voters won’t put up with it (look what’s happening in Wisconsin with public unions). Instead, libertarians need to have a plan to transition out of these institutions. In some cases, the transition might take a few years and others might take decades but instant will never sell to the voters.

            1. “The government doesn’t have it anymore”. Under this logic anyone who holds a government bond is “robbing” the next generation when they expect to get paid. When China buys treasury notes the money isn’t set aside, it’s spent and it’s gone.

              That would be correct. The “asset” the US has is its ability to tax or print money. The US does not set money aside in the sense that we have a cash flow surplus to pay people later. The money inflows that one might suppose are to support future benefits are redirected to current expenditures. To put it another way, if people stopped contributing to my 401(k) my portfolio would retain 100% of its value. If people stopped paying payroll tax the system would grind to a halt in days.

              But even if the argument is that Generation n paid for Generation n-1, that has to stop somewhere: the first ones in got the benefits and the last ones in got shafted. For my generation many expect to receive no SS, although it will probably wind up equivalent to keeping money in a checking account for 50 years. Nearly 15% of income extracted for a piss-poor return on investment and bankrupt government medical care.

              It’s hard to sell “scrap the whole thing” to people who have been paying in for over 30 years. That’s the political reality that libertarian ideas face.

              “If bailing out seniors is part of a package to allow my generation to opt out of SS entirely, so be it, but there is no lockbox.”

              I’m fine with balancing the accounts out. I quite expect to be screwed, but pretty much anything to get out of the

              1. … system would be a small price to pay in the long term.

              2. “If bailing out seniors is part of a package to allow my generation to opt out of SS entirely, so be it, but there is no lockbox.”

                You and I agree on this point. I’d give up any claim on the 34 years I’ve paid in if I could keep my $$ for the next 20 that I plan to work. However, I admit that it’s a harder equation for someone who has paid in for 45 years and will probably work for just another 5.

                As for the lack of a lockbox, you’d be amazed how hard it is to get my students to understand that concept. Many of them really think they have an individual account where the money is stored. I don’t know where they get that idea but it’s hard to convince them that it doesn’t work that way.

                1. The entitlement is already weighted towards giving more to the bottom (ie: welfare-esque). The entitlement also has this way of slowly increasing its percentages so that the current generation is paying more and getting less. Veronique de Rugy is right, you thieving old bastards are fucking the country up, tyranny of the old robbing majority…

                  1. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/oasdiRates.html
                    Look how the rates rise over the years… Thanks old people, ya’ll put half rate in and demand 100% more than what the people who are paying for it are going to get.

        4. Your dipshit generation kept voting for the morons who put the system in place. You asked for it.

          1. To have voted for the first moron, FDR, one would have to be, at least, 89 years old…so who the fuck are you talking to?????

      2. I did plan for retirement…I’m fine how are your grandparents doing???

        1. Mine are as well. They also support ending SS/Medicare because they don’t believe in robbing younger generations.

          1. Well you can be sure most of the poster’s grandparents are depending on SS and medicare!

    3. The government has been making promises it cannot keep in the long run. Someone’s going to get shit on at some point, and the longer we keep lying to ourselves about it the deeper the pile is going to be.

  8. A good percentage of the 1% are in fact stealing from the 99%, abetted by the Federal Reserve. Every time the Fed prints money and gives it to wall street at below market interest rates it is basically stealing miniscule amounts from everyone else. Wall street makes billions doing nothing more than acting as a middle man between the Federal Reserve and the rest of the economy.

    1. Total garbage. The Fed never “gives” money to Wall St or anyone else.

      Banks have $1.6 trillion on RESERVE at the Fed and it pays only 1/4 of 1% interest to them.

      This silly interest arbitrage is fictional.

      1. So, when dollars are created, where do they go?

        1. INTO THE POCKETS OF THE EVIL ONE PERCENT!!!!ONE!ELEVENTY!!!1!

  9. Yes, because providing healthcare to every American is unconstitutional?? C’mon, healthcare should be a fundamental right.

    1. It’s easy to be generous with other people’s money.

    2. “C’mon, healthcare should be a fundamental right.”

      Why stop there? Let’s make an Amendment that bans cancer and guarantees that nobody will ever have a bad day. It’s only Fair.

    3. couldn’t help but notice your name is pfizer. if this was an attempt at sarcasm, you need to work on your delivery.

  10. How dare you say Geezers and Movement in the same sentence.

    1. Diabeetus, goddamit!

  11. The vandalism, rape, robbery, and disease was one thing, but calling Michelle Fields names is simply unacceptable.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..a-c-video/

  12. This was inspired by my reaction to an AARP video:

    The Geezer Mafia

    1. I assume you are referring to the comment section and the title of the bill rather than the bill itself.

      1. Of course, though I find Gillibrand laugh-worthy as well.

        The bill, however, is not going to fix what ails us.

        1. And you are an idiot. This STOCK Act is pure political posture and Gillibrand is the master of it today. She is odds on fave for president in 2017.

          Congress is already subject to insider trading law but that is not pertinent in a campaign.

          This is akin to some conservative asshole sponsoring a bill to kill abortion in the South and let the white babies flourish.

          Its pure shit to stir the base in other words.

          1. You thought I was *buying* her bullshit, shrike?

            Who’s the idiot now?

            1. Wait… don’t bother. We already know you’re an idiot.

  13. I like how she thinks. I am irked by how she speaks. I understand that English is her second language. Given that caveat, she speaks it very well. The problem is the topics she covers are so nuanced, and require precise language. I always come away with the feeling that what she wanted to say, isn’t exactly what she said.

    1. I can live with her dictional flaws, but her lazy eye is too much for me.

  14. “She” being Veronique de Rugy. My ingrish ain’t so guud eether.

  15. Geezers should be supportive of the “Occupy” movement if anyone should be. After all, almost every baby-boomer and older has lost tons of money in their retirement accounts as a direct result of Wall Street’s sadistic games. Disclaimer: I do not support the “Occupy” movements entirely, but with respect to Wall Street, they are spot on.

  16. Man, it looked like a little war zone out there in Oakland between the authorities and the filthy, smelly Occuscum. You know it’s over when even the Bay Area and Washington D.C. have had enough!

  17. The enemy of the stinking, pointless freegans and trustafarians of the Occupy movement is my friend. Well, after they get their bony old hands out of my pockets.

    Nobody who is living on more than $75K per year per household (pension, retirement, investment, or any other kind of income) should be getting a government subsidy. Of any kind.

    1. I agree and I have no problem with a means-tests and I would do five times the median ($200k). As much as $75k sounds like a lot, it would pretty hard to live in NYC with that.

    2. Why should anyone, regardless of income be getting a government subsidy???

  18. The Net Worth this woman is talking about includes homes (which do cost much more than the geezer paid, are worth a lot less).

    Their cash net-worth is abysmal. And even if they sell the home, what exactly is one to do with $190k at the age of 65?

    Her saying that we should just scrap the entire system, let the old people that can’t afford to live come to the poor house, and everyone else would be happy is just like saying economic sanctions against Iran where we close down their central bank is not an act of war, but of mere diplomacy.

    1. Wait. You bitch about cash flow issues, then name a solution to the problem, and then…bitch about that? What would the elderly do with a few hundred grand in cash? I would assume they could, you know, spend it to pay for their expenses? What an inane post.

  19. Sometimes you just gotta wonder, who’s your daddy!

    http://www.pc-anon.tk

  20. What would you say to those “geezers” who lived through the Great Depression and have paid Medicare taxes, with social security held hostage unless they enrolled in Medicare?

    Frankly, I have often said insurance reform is such a simple proposition.

    Everyone in America should just cancel their health insurance policies at once.

    It’s like my idea on tax reform–everyone should file for an extension simultaneously on April 14 each year.

    Bust open the free market and not only will there be real competition, there would be an ensuing decline in costs.

    But the people who have paid into the system–how would you compensate them for money that technically wasn’t a tax but payment for anticipated services?

    Aside from that, it troubles me that the elderly are becoming the new punching bag because we have a government that decides to fund everything from local ballet programs to institutes for people like Paul Simon who I never admired to begin with (Obama made sure that earmark was perpetual because that was his hero).

    I know this is all over the place but I am living through the Florida Primary season. Or trying to.

    I’m not quite to geezer stage yet, but having lived through Jimmy Carter as a young person, I can say young people have it better now than we did then.

  21. Once again, a common sense sounding argument completely devoid of numbers. How much money would means testing save? Would it be worth the trouble?

    Even if it saves some money (and it wouldn’t really), it should have to be enough to justify turning a social insurance program into welfare.

    Now, I happen to know Republicans want to turn it into welfare because a program that benefits only the poor is easier to demonize and eventually kill (like they did to actual welfare in the 90s). Surely libertarians aren’t similarly motivated and are just confused about the math.

    1. And the reason it wouldn’t save much money is because the number of old people who can actually afford to do without government healthcare subsidies is small and growing smaller–certainly not compared to the vast costs involved. You want to make it fair, extend it to all.

    2. Wait, there’s no more welfare? Why didn’t anyone tell me this?

      1. Yeah, cynical. Get with the times. It’s all because rich people aren’t being taxed an additional 4.6 cents on the dollar.

    3. So you are going to give some numbers to justify your argument ? Didn’t think so.

    4. Yes, the leftist attacks and supports only intentions. If someone opposes his programs, it must be motivated by pure evil or greed. I generally grant good intentions to my leftist friends. I believe they genuinely want to help people. It’s not intentions that are the problem; it’s those nasty consequences. Tony would probably say that a man seeking to enrich himself and build houses for aesthetic purposes only (he cares not whether anyone lives there) was evil even if poor people lived in those houses. But the gov’t agent that tries to help poor people with rent control and ends up screwing them over is okay because the intentions were good. It’s a fallacy to assume bad intentions in your opponent. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

  22. My name just begs for this.

  23. “‘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.”

    The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. It’s true, a priori, that any time we pay for something it’s because we regard it as of value in some way. When a mugger points a gun at me and says “your money or your life,” I’m paying for something of value to me.

    There’s just the eensy, weensy trivial little matter of who controls the terms under which the transaction is made.

    And a very large part of the wealth of the 1% comes, not simply from providing stuff that people want to consume, but also by controlling the terms under which others are allowed to compete in offering it for sale.

    But actually addressing trivia like that would mean working from actual free market principles, and not just crapping out pro-plutocratic boilerplate with a topping of rancid “free market sauce (with natural and artificial flavorings, BHA and MSG) like Thomas Sowell does.

  24. says Veronique de Rugy

    A name like that just begs for a boyfriend who wears a monocle.

    1. I should like to ride by her house, let me tell you something, my good sir.

      1. I’d let her clean my spats, if you get my meaning, eh wot?

  25. don’t forget: the relatively healthy young (well, those over 26) will be funding the older set under obamneycare. may as well load up on big macs, smokes, and booze before you’re 26 so you can take advantage of all that “free” health care. not that you’ll necessarily see the effects right away, but if you live long enough, all that “free” healthcare will pay for your triple bypass, your new lung, and a new liver! woohoo!

    1. The relative young aren’t working, so how can they pay in what they don’t earn?
      What’s going to happen to them when they’re old?? They’ll be wanting SS, but since they didn’t pay into it, then they can’t collect it. I think they’d better wake up, because this government is out of money and they’ll toss these people into the wind.

  26. A troubling article with misguided comments. Those who are elderly now are the ones who worked & paid taxes during the decades when America was a productive industrial powerhouse. They earned their benefits.

    The Occupy Movement for the most part does not work. Some of them are unemployable judging by their appearance & their conduct. Many of them are just representative of the large permanent underclass in America that is happy with their lot – food stamps, TANF, and other welfare benefits.

    Here’s a strange idea I’ll give freely to the Occupy movement: if you want something work for it. If you want more then work harder.

    1. Yeah, as soon as those generations pay off that 90% debt/GDP we’ve racked up to pay for bennies and wars — plus the underlying off-balance-sheet liabilities for accrued Social Security and Medicare benefits which are several 100%/GDP, depending upon whom you believe — I’ll cut them some slack here and say they “deserve” it. I have no sympathy left for OWS but they hardly represent the members of my generation that have been gifted a mountain of public debt in our name.

  27. Let me tell you one thing that the best health insurance plans has completely different set of meaning for different type of people. For those who are rich, the plan which can earn them more is best. However, those who are in the middle class have different ideas. They think that insurance plan is the best for which they will have to pay minimum premium. However, the poor person does not even know that what is health insurance? If you are one of them search online for “Penny Medical” and get smart about insurance.

  28. She is pretty hot

  29. And then, of course, there are the financial transfers from the old to the young when the young are aged from birth to 18 or 21 or so.

    But we can ignore that.

    Let’s also ignore the now-abandoned custom by the exercise of which children took care of their parents when they got old, and made the elderly part of their extended family. Just stick ’em in the asssisted living facility and forget ’em.

    1. I didn’t realize today’s young wouldn’t have to pay for their kids in the same way. Debt, however, is not paid forward, and we have $15 trillion of it, plus many times more in unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare. We don’t get to add half of our GDP to the national debt to fund foreign adventures and domestic handouts, as the US did from the 80s onward.

      Future generations will shoulder more and more of the same burdens you mentioned while receiving less and less in return. Our debt is already near the point where it becomes a drag on growth. To the extent that we owe something that our forebears truly and honestly gave to us that we will in no way repay to our children, sure, take it. But what percent of our national debt do you think that is?

      As for multigenerational households, those haven’t been the norm for a long time. There were only 3 million such homes in the 50s (population: 130 million) and there are 5 million now. The real low was actually around 1980 anyway.

      1. Let’s use the value of $3500 per year, the Federal government’s dependent child deduction, as the yardstick for what it costs a parent for a child.

        Let’s say there are 40 million homes with a dependent child. Over say, 20 years of dependency, at $3500 per year, parents taking care of their own children will spend $140,000,000,000 per year ($140 billion per year) x 20 years, or $2,800,000,000,000 in 20 years, enough to pay off 18% of the entire national debt all by itself.

        So if the government just cut out the dependent child exemption, that would help the national debt crisis quite a lot all by itself.

        1. Let’s then suppose that an aged relative who would otherwise be collecting Social Security is cared for by his family. I believe the average Social Security monthly stipend is something on the order of about $1200 a month. If that were cut out, the government could save $1200 x 12 months = 14400. Multiplying that figure by 3 million elderly in an ongoing extended care situation would save the government an additional $43,200,000,000, or $43.2 billion dollars a year. Times 20 years that’s, let’s see, $864,000,000,000, or nearly a trillion dollars.

          Not too shabby, and doesn’t involve a lot of agony.

        2. Just doing those things would get the national debt paid off in a century. That’s actually imaginable, if not realistic.

          Imagine what could happen if the Social Security entitlement was raised to 70 years of age instead of the late 60s. My, my, we might get that debt paid without throwing out Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security (although they really ought to go for other reasons), in a couple of generations…

        3. My generation will be paying for the same thing. Your parents did, too. There’s a pay-it-forward element to child-rearing. I have moral obligations to my children because of what my parents did for me, and obligations to my parents because of what they did for their parents. I’m talking about things that we won’t be paying for. If Generation n-1 had their parents live in and Generation n, sure, but that’s not actually happening. If Generation n decided not to spend any money or time on their children, sure, but that’s not happening (really, a higher percentage of income is being spent per child and more time allotted).

          The question is how much was a one-way subsidy of my generation and how much was a one-way wealth extraction. I don’t see how I’ll raise my children any different than my parents raised me, but I darn sure won’t support any non-defensive war, any expansions in SS, and any expansions in Medicare, as those before me did. It’s national offense and entitlements that comprise the bulk of that debt, and none of it is essential government spending by even the most wishy-washy minarchist view.

  30. Ms. de Rugy seems to put her finger on the symptom but not the underlying problem.
    Yes, working people now are paying into all these social programs (aka ponzi schemes) to keep them afloat for the retired generation that did the exact same thing they are doing now. I hate seeing 35%-40% of my paycheck disappear. I scrimp and save and sacrifice so I can pay into SS and Medicrap for other people while at the same time stuff away 8% in my 401k.
    Yes, the older generation will always demand that programs they paid into are continued. They will vote that way. I would too if I were in their shoes. I just wish they wouldn’t get so hysterical at any mention of these “third rails of politics” items and actually think first. We all agree the programs stink. So let someone scrap it and start over. But no, never to be done.
    However, seems to me the fix to all this is what’s been suggested many times by people with (R)s next to their name. Let people opt in or opt out. Allow us younger generation to either fund our own retirement in our own accounts at whatever level suits us as we go through our careers or let us continue on with these unsustainable idiotic programs. Bush got hammered by looney lefties and squishy RINOs for trying to implement this at just a small percentage. Paul Ryan was unsupported in his attempt to discuss his plan to reform entitlements.
    Its funny how many comments here are from people seemingly “of the left” that want to just cut off the elderly so they can save for themselves. But then you’re all the first ones to yell and scream in protest when the few brave politicians who dare talk about it actually try to implement a program that would move us in that direction.

  31. if some older americans, due to their frugality have no need of a s.s.pension[i know wrong word], maybe they shoud receive all their premiums with accrued interest.this could be taken out over an extended period to ease any strain on s.s., and also spreadout the taxable part of return.

    1. Considering your comment, it amuses me to consider the argument that people make a lot, that when we start receiving Social Security at whatever age we qualify for it, we live longer and therefore get more than we put in.

      Well, yeah, that’s the payback for us not having that money to invest during our working lives. It was always contemplated that way, even by FDR.

  32. Wait a minute. If I have been paying into Social Security all my working life and now want to start taking out from it, how exactly is that a transfer to someone else. How about this– let me put those payments into my own account and draw that down when I retire? The analysis here is wrong. The payments are taken from those who work and given back to them- as well as those who don’t work- later on. And don’t forget- when Social Security was passed into law, it was titled and described as an insurance policy. What kind of insurance makes you pay a premium based on your income, and then when you go to file a claim- i.e. start taking SS payments, bases your payout on your wealth? This is one big ponzi scheme in nature. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be required by force of law to participate.

    1. My mom, bless her dear heart, once opined that if the government had the moral integrity of a true thief instead of the morals of politicians, they would just keep the money they steal out of our income for Social Security instead of first stealing, then dictating to us the terms upon which they’ll return it to us.

      But mom was just a farm girl; what did she know about these highfalutin issues?

    2. Tony, you are correct, but the “wealth transfer from the young” is happening because seniors have been the group MOST responsible for re-relecting these same politicians over the years who’ve been SPENDING that money on other things to buy votes.

  33. Well, yeah, that’s the payback for us not having that money to invest during our working lives. It was always contemplated that way, even by FDR. Ms. de Rugy seems to put her finger on the symptom but not the underlying problem.
    Yes, working people now are paying into all these social programs (aka ponzi schemes) to keep them afloat for the retired generation that did the exact same thing they are doing now. I hate seeing 35%-40% of my paycheck disappear. I scrimp and save and sacrifice so I can pay into SS and Medicrap for other people while at the same time stuff away 8% in my 401k.

  34. Ms. de Rugy seems to put her finger on the symptom but not the underlying problem.
    Yes, working people now are paying into all these social programs (aka ponzi schemes) to keep them afloat for the retired generation that did the exact same thing they are doing now. I hate seeing 35%-40% of my paycheck disappear. I scrimp and save and sacrifice so I can pay into SS and Medicrap for other people while at the same time stuff away 8% in my 401k.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.