Occupy The Varicose Veiny
reason writer Veronique de Rugy, on NRO, has a better suggestion for the Occupy Wall Street protesters: Occupy the AARP:
My theory is that while they are right that some groups have more political power than others and right to think in terms of class warfare, they are mistaken to construe the lines only in stark economic terms (the 1 Percent vs. the 99 Percent.) There's another war -- much more important in my view -- that pits one class against another and is fully the result of specific government policies: the systematic transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor to the relatively old and wealthy....As you can see, in 1970, spending on Social Security and Medicare was one-fifth percent of the budget (blue portion). This portion has since grown to nearly 37 percent of the budget in 2010. By 2030, half of the entire budget will be consumed by payments for senior citizens.
...According to the Pew Research Center, "In 2009, the typical household headed by an adult 65 or older had $170,494 in net worth, compared with just $3,662 for the typical household headed by an adult younger than 35," and "the current gap is by far the largest since the Census Bureau began collecting these data in 1984. Back then, the age-based wealth gap was 10:1. By 2009, it had ballooned to 47:1."
This data is evidence that economist Scott Sumner is right (again) about the fact that income often is a misleading measure, which results in the adoption of inefficient policy measures. In this case, the focus on income data leads one to conclude that the elderly are in need of assistance. A focus on consumption data shows that some are but most aren't.
The government is sure to mess up, as long as takes money, rights, or property away from any one group of individuals to give away to any other group of individuals.
I'm making less than 40K a year and because I lead an uncomplicated life, I am asked to pay a total of about 24% payroll tax, and over 8% sales tax (NYC). Still have $9-10K in debt for college and family issues. I live in one small room of a house - no car. No health insurance. I am asked to give close to a third of my earnings to one form of government or another.
I'd love to meet the individuals of any group who have a greater stake on my wages than I do. 1776 started over a lot less than this.
Michael at March 18, 2012 3:59 AM
Net worth: In business, net worth (sometimes called net assets) is the total assets minus total outside liabilities of an individual or a company. For a company, this is called shareholders' preference and may be referred to as book value. Net worth is stated as at a particular year in time. In the case of an individual, the term estate is used in relation to deceased individuals in probate.
So if you worked from 18-65 (47 years) paid off the house, paid off the cars and have a little bit of money in the bank, you get to the $170K number. Meanwhile a 30 year old that is still paying off student loans, has a car loan and put 3% down on the house will barely have any net worth.
Both cases have absolutely no bearing on income. The 30 year old may be bringing in $2500 every two weeks while the older household is getting by on the $2,513 SS payment per month.
I agree the government needs to get out of the Social Security business. But do it gracefully. (Like the 8000 pound gorilla can anything gracefully.)
This is just another version of class warfare.
Jim P. at March 18, 2012 6:30 AM
(Offtopic- Everybody saw this, right?)
(Pettion: Amy should do one joke/photo post per day so people will have a place to unload stuff like this without interrupting her topic flow. Sign below:)
(1. _Crid______)
(2. ___________)
(3. ___________)
(4. ___________)
(5. ___________)
Crid at March 18, 2012 7:48 AM
Offtopic- Everybody saw this, right?)
(Pettion: Amy should do one joke/photo post per day so people will have a place to unload stuff like this without interrupting her topic flow. Sign below:)
(1. _Crid______)
(2. __chang_________)
(3. ___________)
(4. ___________)
(5. ___________)
chang at March 18, 2012 8:42 AM
Varicose veins do not just happen to old people. You pretty much either get them or not. They are also painful as hell, according to my family members who have them. What you are seeing in oldsters,btw, is skin thinning, revealing normal veins. Making fun of a medical condition is severely uncool. What's next, cancer? How about cystic fibrosis?
deathbysnoosnoo at March 18, 2012 9:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/18/occupy_aarp.html#comment-3080182">comment from deathbysnoosnooMaking fun of a medical condition is severely uncool. What's next, cancer? How about cystic fibrosis?
Oh, come on.
I have very fair skin and if you look at me in a sleeveless dress, in sunlight, my arms resemble those of that clear science man toy with all the veins showing through. I think I also have a vein showing through (maybe a vein or two) of the varicose variety. Must there really be a moratorium on joking about all things? Are varicose veins really on the same level as cystic fibrosis? I mean, here I've been, walking around mindlessly when I should be hooked up to an IV in a hospital bed somewhere for my two visible leg veins.
HELLLLLP meeeeee! I'm dying of unsightly leg veins!
Amy Alkon
at March 18, 2012 9:14 AM
(checking legs for any unsightly veins ...)
As far as all the cash transfers to old people are concerned, it would certainly help if everyone could come to an agreement about what the programs are supposed to be.
Social Security was started up as an old-age insurance program. You couldn't even get a payment out of it unless you lived 2-3 years longer than the average lifespan. No one had the expectation that they would get out of it what they paid in, any more than you would expect to get your homeowners insurance premiums back just because your house didn't burn down.
People were expected to provide for themselves for their entire lives, through saving money or having family members help. But when you get the government involved, the safety net becomes a tool for political pandering.
As time went on and people began living longer, it was politically impossible to raise the payout age, or it would be something like 80 by now. People expect to get to the age of 62 or 65, which usually isn't even too old to work, and even if they have plenty of their own money they expect to "get back what they paid in."
Now everyone sees it as some kind of 401K. But it hasn't been priced according to an annuity-based model, it's still priced more like a term policy, but one where everyone gets paid out but their premiums are never adjusted accordingly. Something for nothing - and eventually we're all going to find out firsthand what folly that was.
Even if the younger generations really and truly wanted to provide their elders with unlimited medical procedures and 20 years of comfortably farting around in a Winnebago, they will never be able to make enough money. That is already baked into the cake.
Pirate Jo at March 18, 2012 10:32 AM
Old people vote.
clinky at March 18, 2012 1:51 PM
"What's next, cancer?"
No. Snoosnoo. Your handle mocks the suffering of millions!
Radwaste at March 18, 2012 4:59 PM
Thanks Amy! I feel better about my translucence!
ValiantBlue at March 19, 2012 3:35 AM
Leave a comment