So the argument here is that grandma is doing better than most because her
income, while still almost 25% lower then the next lowest group, grew at a
faster rate. Therefor, grandma really isn't doing all that bad.Are you kidding me? The elderly still have an income almost 1/4 less then the
next LOWEST group. They are hardly living large at the expense of everyone
else.... how much below the average do they need to be before certain crowds
will be happy.
The point of Mr Samuelson's column was that we're taking money from
the young (often with children to support) to support the elderly who in many to
most cases don't need the money whose children have moved out and their
house is paid for. Have you ever been to Las Vegas and seen who's dumping
their money into slot machines? It ain't 22 year olds. I'm all
about taking care of the elderly but America is going bankrupt because of the
AARP. Are we going to destroy everyone's finances because we can't
make changes to Soc Sec and Medicare? Medicare is a lousy insurance program
anyway for the people on it.
Many government programs are designed to either transfer money from wealthy
people to poor people or from young people to old people.The point
of the article is that "old" does not necessarily mean "poor".
In fact, government may be taking money from a young struggling family and
giving it to some rich old guy who is happy to get it, but doesn't need
it.I'm not talking about Social Security where old people are
receiving benefits from a program they paid into over their whole lives. I am
talking about the other stuff where you get a benefit without having contributed
at all.This notion that we have to give all seniors (including
Warren Buffett) a big discount on everything just because they are old places a
financial burden on everyone else.
My grandma has no pension. She raised kids, so she had no income to tax. Her
meager savings were spent long ago. She lives on my late grandpa's Social
Security and uses Medicare. What does Mr. Samuelson propose that she do? Opening
doors at Walmart is a little tough for a 90-year-old lady who can't see
well and suffers from dementia.
Lucky those for getting dealt a good hand of cards. Vegas has more losers than
winners. 30 years ago 100,000 was a lot of money when a house coated 20,000.
What will you need 30 years from now.
"The idea that Social Security and Medicare spending should be defended to
the last dollar — as advocated by many liberals — is politically
expedient and intellectually lazy."If they are advocating taking
money from the working poor to give to well to-do seniors who are politically
powerful, they aren't liberal. They may be a different type of
conservative than Newt Gingrich or the Koch Brothers, but still equally toxic.