Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:
Quote:
Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,
Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.
In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/