Of course there are reasons to pay for older wealthier people... They vote a lot more. Perverse incentives and all that.

As an occupier, I think your argument is flawed. People receiving Social Security benefits have paid into all their working lives, for the most part. If they are not entitled to their SS checks, who is/

Secondly, by instituting a Robin Hood tax of 0.05% on every dollar traded on Wall Street, Social Security and Education could both be fully funded.

Your article tries to instigate ageist divisions in the 99%. It is not a battle between the old and the young, but the 99% against the 1%.

Finally, the 1% provide nothing useful to society, pay no taxes and basically live on the work of other people by charging usurious rates for monies they received at 0.0001% interest from the Federal Reserve.

So, go back to college and restudy your economics and political theory dear.

S.A.D. writes ""Of course there are reasons to pay for older wealthier people... They vote a lot more. ""

Exactly! It really is a question that is fully answered that simply. A) the elderly vote in big numbers. B) More than anything, Politicians crave a group that always show up to the polls in big numbers. C) The Politicians pay them off in the form of favorable laws and generous spending measures to assure they will be a reliable vote now and in the future.

""the 1% provide nothing useful to society, pay no taxes and basically live on the work of other people""

There is an argument to be made about who gets access to lawmakers and the negative consequences that ensue for the average taxpayer (though it certainly isn't just the "1%" who buy access and ultimately shaft the average taxpayer). With that said, you're either grossly misinformed or a liar. The "1%" pay the lion's share of taxes. That is a fact.
If you want to argue the very wealthiest among us should pay higher tax rates/a higher share of federal gov't income, have at it. That is your right to argue why that is a good idea. But how about giving everyone a pleasant shock and you Occupiers argue it honestly.

"Finally, the 1% provide nothing useful to society, pay no taxes and basically live on the work of other people by charging usurious rates for monies they received at 0.0001% interest from the Federal Reserve."

Why not call for killing them? It seemed to work out so well about, oh, 70 years ago.

Money is not the gray/green/pink rag in your wallet. It's a system you can learn, and there are lots of resources to teach you how to handle it. When you do, you'll have lots better options than to complain about other people's money, demand that it be taken from them and call them worthless.

There's projection for you!

Freeman you are wrong in every particular.

First, yes they have paid into it, but for a large number, they've gotten MORE back than they EVER put in. And as benefits increase, that will only get worse.

Second, Robin Hood was a thief. Naming a tax after him, while catchy and accurate, is not inspiring. Furthermore, you are presuming that benefits remain unchanged, and if anything has been shown to be true, it is that these benefits are expanding, not stabilizing. And last on that point, education is supposed to be funded by the areas where schools actually ARE, by property taxes, thus ensuring that localities have control and influence over their own schools. There is one immutable truth in life, and it is that the people who run things only answer to the people who pay them.

Third: The 1% cost you nothing, there is no reason to be "against" them at all. If Bill Gates makes a billion a year, not 1 penny came from me unless I chose to buy a product produced by his company.

Fourth: the 1% pays the majority of the entire nation's income taxes. Your assertion that they do not, is PROVABLY false. 2 minutes of research and you can pull up the IRS breakdown of taxes paid per income bracket.

Fifth: The majority of the super rich got that way competitively, by creating a business, they start the Microsoft's, the Apples', the Wendy's, that create jobs that drive economies and even create them. Governments draw almost 100% of their taxes from either the businesses that these people started, or from employees that work for said businesses.

Last but not least, you say to "Go back to college and restudy economics" but all you've shown is that you haven't studied any economics at all, not even so much as a google search. Otherwise you'd see what the IRS is showing is paid by income base, and you'd know that the vast majority of the wealthy did not start there. And as for "political theory" I'd hazard a guess, and I'd put money on it, that the sum and total of your "political theory" experience is based upon or sourced in Marxist writing, which I only say as a criticism because no country that applied their theories has ever been prosperous as a result. Which is about as close as you can get to a provably false economic theory as you can get.

(Its ironic, you write that the 1% contribute nothing...but you write it on a computer patented by a company that was started by some people that are part of the "1%", wearing clothes probably manufactured by a similar group, eating food probably grown by big agriculture, driving in a car made by a major automotive manufacturer which is run by 1%ers)

Next time I eat a hamburger I'm going to complain about how worthless grain farmers and ranchers are, just to add to the irony even further.

The Occupy movement is essentially one part of the entitlement class (as Freeman so aptly demonstrated) at war against another part of the entitlement class. As such, it's irrelevant to this discussion. (Or pretty much any other discussion.)

Yesterday The Daily Beast ran an article (which I can't access using our crippled computers at work, or I'd post a link) talking about the "screwed generations": GenX and the Millennials. I'm a early X'er and I fall just below the cutoff age in Paul Ryan's Medicare reform plan. No surprise there, nor am I particularly dismayed by it: I've known all my adult life that this was going to happen and I've planned accordingly. For us X'ers, the fight is to make sure that the government doesn't raid our 401K's to fund SS and Medicare for the generation ahead of us. I'm still not so sure that we'll win that fight.

However, I also note that Ryan is polling pretty well in retiree-loaded Florida. So there's a fair piece of the elderly demographic who have some concern for their children and grandchildren.

Everything Robert said, plus

People receiving Social Security benefits have paid into all their working lives, for the most part. If they are not entitled to their SS checks, who is

And who's going to pay benefits to the people currently paying "into" (there is nowhere to actually accumulate the money, but never mind) the system? It's pretty close to break even now, annual inflow will shortly drop below (or already has, I lose track) annual outflow. So the current beneficiaries are entitled but their kids aren't? Beat this fact into your skull - today's benefits are coming out of today's payments, not out of some mythical trust fund. The money they paid in is GONE. To be brutal about it, today's retirees deserve a cut for panicking every time any change to SS was proposed and turning it into the "third rail" of US politics.

Secondly, by instituting a Robin Hood tax of 0.05% on every dollar traded on Wall Street, Social Security and Education could both be fully funded.

Yay, money from nowhere! You could siphon off the half cent rounding errors from bank transactions while you're at it.

So, go back to college and restudy your economics and political theory dear.

Would you like to pat Amy on the head while you're at it? Don't use your dominant hand or you'll be spending a lot of time learning how to write again, you condescending prick. For someone who is totally ignorant you've got a nerve.

I keep hearing retirees say, 'It's not OUR fault the government stole the money in our trust fund! The government needs to pay us back!'

JAYsus jumped-up-fiddlin' christ. The government doesn't have its own money, you stupid bunch of Q-tips! And stop distancing yourselves from the government you elected! What Ltw said: "To be brutal about it, today's retirees deserve a cut for panicking every time any change to SS was proposed and turning it into the "third rail" of US politics."

It's pretty easy for people to look the other way when they benefit so much from the status quo.

I'm in the same generational cohort as Cousin Dave, and I've known my whole life that this would happen, too. For my entire forty-two years I've been listening to the old heads say, 'Yep, you kids are going to get screwed,' and shrug.

Yeah, I was told by my teacher in HS (1990) not to expect any SS. She said she didn't expect hers. I am making alternate plans.

wow Freeman, if you don't act quickly, that's gonna leave a mark...

So Mr. College Edumacated, you have to come up with facts, that you can link to, so everyone else can read them. and then you have to argue your point and not run away.

Or did they not teach that in the college you went to?

As a side note, you may wish to research how many of your government elites are part of the 1% you have such contempt for... and wonder how they got there.

As an occupier, I think your argument is flawed. People receiving Social Security benefits have paid into all their working lives, for the most part. If they are not entitled to their SS checks, who is/

They've already gotten more than they paid in, also SS was not created to be an investment vehicle for everyone, it was created to be a safety net for people lucky enough to live longer that the average age of death and unlucky enough to not have the cash or the family to care for their needs

Secondly, by instituting a Robin Hood tax of 0.05% on every dollar traded on Wall Street, Social Security and Education could both be fully funded.

So you want to steal money from only a certain type of trasaction? Why not all transactions?

Your article tries to instigate ageist divisions in the 99%. It is not a battle between the old and the young, but the 99% against the 1%.

Why? Use your words, precicly articluate your point, make it a paragraph or two. As my math teacher used to say "show your work"

Finally, the 1% provide nothing useful to society, pay no taxes and basically live on the work of other people by charging usurious rates for monies they received at 0.0001% interest from the Federal Reserve.

The 1% pay more than 50% of all taxes, the fund, or even create the companies that employ most of america

So, go back to college and restudy your economics and political theory dear.

You mean communism and marxism right? Tell me Freeman, who would it be any different this time?

Crony capitalism in america sucks, I'll grant you that. But scores of countries have tried communism and marxism - They've all failed, they've all been far more corrupt than greedy corrupt americans could ever hope of america being. Most of them had to murder a few hunndered thousand to millions of people to hide the fact that they were failing.

Here is the fundamental flaw of communism. And if you see a way around it let me know.

Under capitalism if I work three times harder than you I recieve a greater reward. Under communism no matter how much harder than you I work we recieve the same reward.

What there for is my reason to work harder than you? What is my reason to work as hard as you at all? If our reward will be the same regardless why shouldnt I just work less than you?

Answer men that

It's ironic, but the ones who really benefit from the old getting checks are the young who used to take care of their parents in old age...now they may still "take care" of the parents in old age, but only because the parent has a check coming in and a house to stay in and can support the adult kid who moves back in.

It's ironic, but the ones who really benefit from the old getting checks are the young who used to take care of their parents in old age...now they may still "take care" of the parents in old age, but only because the parent has a check coming in and a house to stay in and can support the adult kid who moves back in.

This is both true and unfair. I certainly benefited from my parents getting SS. My father lived to 89 and used up far more than he put into it. Same for my mother, who lived to 76. On the other hand, there was no way I could have taken care of them otherwise. I didn't have the medical skills required for the job, nor did I have the ability to quit my job to do it.

Boomers got the best deal, and while I'm not a Boomer, I have a lot in common with them. They didn't have to go into debt taking care of their aging parents. Unlike Boomers, I do not expect to see Social Security. And if all goes well, I will not be depending on it.

I don't mind having some money taken out of each check to support people who can't care for themselves in old age. Whatever their reasons, we're not going to let them starve to death on a street corner, so we need a way to keep them fed and housed. What bothers me is contributing to the high-end-wine fund of people who don't need it.

I'd like to see us looking at what people's actual needs are. If giving someone taxpayer-funded glasses and hearing aids and help with grocery shopping and housekeeping keeps them out of government-funded assisted-living facilities, then it's a far cheaper alternative. I remember when the social worker at my father's rehab center tried to give me a commode because Medicare provided it. The man had a permanent catheter and a colostomy bag, and she seemed confused when I turned it down, kind of like how some cashiers seem momentarily stunned when you tell them you don't need a bag. Did she expect me to store his beer there? What a waste.

Thanks, Robert, for your post. You are 100% correct! I am going to keep your post close, because I get in these arguments all the time with my looney friends on the left!

I'm going to need to come back when I'm further awake and re-read all the comments, but for now...

1.) Didn't Robin Hood rob from the TAX collector and wealthy who were hording the tax money, and give it back to the taxpayer? If I'm right about that, then that's the equivalent of the populace saying "get your hands off my wallet & I want my money back?"

2.) As mentioned above, WEALTH is not the same as INCOME. We define these brackets based on income tax returns, not actual wealth.

2 examples to make this clear. 1) My grandmother has not had significant income my entire life (I'm 31). She lives off her assets (think Roth IRA, in hesitance, etc.). She owns several properties. Her WEALTH is much higher than her income. 2.) My own household. If our income holds entirely stable for the next 5 years, our wealth will go up because we are paying back debt (student loans, mortgage) and saving. Our income would not change, but would likely go down percentile-wise.

BTW, I love the title of this blog post :)

Admittedly, it's a little easier for me to be objective - I'm don't live in the US and since I started in the workforce my retirement contributions have all gone into a private investment fund with my name on it. It's not enough yet, but I've got 25 years to fix that. I'm impressed by those of you clear headed enough to understand that you'll never see a cent back from your FICA(?) and still be philosophical about it.

I think the main issue here is that we're all "soft" about what needs are. There are people who can barely afford rent and food in very basic accommodations. If they are going to starve or forgo medical treatment, I think we'd all agree that a moral society would help out.

However, this is different from saying that somebody has a "right" to stay in their home (that they own), not take out a reverse-mortgage, and have society pay for the costs of their groceries, gas, medicine, etc.

The question is NEED. If you own a home, you have an asset you can sell. The advent of the reverse mortgage has even given people a way to extract money from the asset while staying in their home - they just can't give it to their heirs.

So, I'm not really with the "keep Granny in her home" argument as that's really "keep the asset/wealth in the family" given the current set of options.

Now, if Granny took out a reverse mortgage when she got the flu and was hospitalized last year, and now she fractured her hip (or whatever) and can't afford it, she's in the same position as the person who can't afford basic rent, etc, because she no longer owns her home.

Consider this. In this scenario, Granny is still likely living in better conditions than the poor people I mentioned to start. She doesn't have to move.

So, I'm with the lady in the video Amy posted. Help those who need it, regardless of age. However, I REALLY mean need. I gave up TV in part for costs when I was in my early 20's. My means test doesn't allow for cable TV, more than 2 pets (farm animals excluded), more than 2 cars per household, expensive cell phones (I pay $15 a month for my pre-paid and the phone only cost $20), and other luxuries that people pass as necessities these days.

It's ironic, but the ones who really benefit from the old getting checks are the young who used to take care of their parents in old age...now they may still "take care" of the parents in old age, but only because the parent has a check coming in and a house to stay in and can support the adult kid who moves back in.

Posted by: carol at August 21, 2012 12:47 PM

-----------

I take issue with this. Sure, moochers who wouldn't be able to earn more than Granny's SS check on their own will mooch, but that's neither here nor there---they'd be leeches of some kind no matter what. I guess you mean they, the leeches, benefit, not that young people as a whole are better off because now we don't have to take care of our parents? Because we are still taking care of them, whether they earned it or not. The young adults who were raised with a sense of duty to their parents, (by parents who *earned* their adult children's care by being good parents, and remember not all of us had those parents) would take care of their parents regardless of what the government sends them.

As it is, the good sons and daughters with good elderly parents are still paying to take care of their parents---they're just running the money through the asinine government middleman first, instead of sending money to Mom directly or paying her insurance or what have you. In multi-generation homes, the government simply takes money from Junior Citizen's paycheck, turns into a check to Senior and Mrs. Citizen and wastes a stamp sending it back to the same house where Junior Citizen would've brought it if he'd been allowed to keep it in his paycheck. And people who weren't properly brought up (like my husband and his four sisters, brought up mostly in foster care) and don't have any real obligation, moral or legal to their parents still get shafted majorly.

Like MonicaP, I'm fine (to some limited extent) with having some tax money go to a fund for truly poor senior citizens, or really truly poor citizens of any age. But for people to be entitled to money just because they're old is stupid and actually regressive. Poorer people and minorities don't live as long and would be better served by holding onto that money and investing it in a way that *they* see fit, while they're still around to benefit and while they can use it on their kids. In the current system the most screwed family is a lower-or-middle-class one where the parent(s) die in their fifties or early sixties (which is young, but not remarkably so) while the kids are in their twenties. Sca-rewed. Dad paid in his whole working life, say age 20-55 and now Mom (if she's under 60) gets less than $500 towards burial and the barely-grown kids get nothing. Imagine how that same lower middle class family could've done with that same money in ANYTHING but social security.

1. Depends on which Robin Hood myth you go with. He was only ever fictional after all, so if you go by the Disney one where he is a fox, its rob from the rich give to the poor. If the Kevin Costner one, he robbed from everybody who passed through Sherwood if they were rich. And so on and so forth.

2. True. Hence why we call them "Income taxes" rather than "Wealth taxes" we do not tax the base, only the revenue. Property taxes are closer to "wealth taxes" as they tax your assets in property. Which is theoretically a measure of ability to pay.