don't leave our children and grandchildren with lots of debt

Bryan · 08-15-2011, 11:57 AM

I hear and read a lot from politicians saying we shouldn't leave our children and grandchildren saddle with a large national debt.

But yet, two of the biggest drivers of our national debt is for old people (social security and medicare).

So my question is, when are the old people going to put their money where their mouth is and sacrifice for their children and grandchildren.

Social Security is a big problem. If you retire with enough income from pensions and investments to support your needs, you shouldn't get social security. If you own your home out right and don't have a monthly mortgage or rent, you don't need as much.

I guess I'm just frustrated with the whole situation. Politicians pander more to old people than anybody. They have all the money and they are afraid of losing their campaign contributions. Just ranting a little I suppose...

**Rainer.** · 08-15-2011, 02:44 PM

More prominently, elderly Americans vote more than the young. They also tend to distrust young "inexperienced" voters, and have special interest groups appealing to them left and right.

**Chrysostom** · 08-15-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

So my question is, when are the old people going to put their money where their mouth is and sacrifice for their children and grandchildren.

Ha.

jthomas1600 · 09-15-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

I hear and read a lot from politicians saying we shouldn't leave our children and grandchildren saddle with a large national debt.

But yet, two of the biggest drivers of our national debt is for old people (social security and medicare).

So my question is, when are the old people going to put their money where their mouth is and sacrifice for their children and grandchildren.

Social Security is a big problem. If you retire with enough income from pensions and investments to support your needs, you shouldn't get social security. If you own your home out right and don't have a monthly mortgage or rent, you don't need as much.

I guess I'm just frustrated with the whole situation. Politicians pander more to old people than anybody. They have all the money and they are afraid of losing their campaign contributions. Just ranting a little I suppose...

The bolded portion: I've been saying something along the same lines for a long time. Even if you can't get behind the idea of some people getting nothing....we could at least have a sliding scale. People say "I've paid into it all my life so I deserve it". We all pay taxes that end up in the welfare coffers....but most people don't ever say "I've paid into the welfare system all my life...I deserve my fare share...I'm going to quite my job and collect what I've got coming".

**Chrysostom** · 10-11-2011, 04:09 PM

I imagine the reason they haven't done that thus far is that it negates any claim whatsoever to social security's original charter. It's supposed to be a program you pay into and then receive out of according to what you put into it, which is unlike most other entitlement programs.

**thesteve** · 10-11-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I imagine the reason they haven't done that thus far is that it negates any claim whatsoever to social security's original charter. It's supposed to be a program you pay into and then receive out of according to what you put into it, which is unlike most other entitlement programs.

I suppose the question then is, since Social Security doesn't operate as the original charter intended (from what I've read, people currently paying into the system will be lucky to see 75% of the money they put into it), at what point do we need to overhaul the system?

**Chrysostom** · 10-11-2011, 05:41 PM

Right, which is another way of parsing out what Bryan is getting at. And it's tough because it's been political suicide to mention the elephant in the room for the last decade or two. Republicans couldn't mess with it (although they tried some) because the elderly are one of their key bases of support, while Democrats wouldn't mess with it because they don't like to cut back on entitlements. Surely at some point the writing is on the wall, and if the elderly really want to help younger generations here is an opportunity.

Nonetheless, these kinds of cutbacks in spending aren't going to be steep enough to dealing with the looming rise of entitlement spending, which indeed balloons in coming social security costs (and is not helped by "defense" spending) but will just explode as government health expenditures take off.

**Epaphras** · 10-12-2011, 08:41 AM

It hasn't worked like a personal pension fund since it started. "I paid into it all my life, so I'm entitled to payments now in retirement" is not really true. When they were working, they were paying for retirees at the time. Today they are being paid for partially by the trust fund balance that they contributed to, but in even larger part by today's workers - their kids and grandkids.

We (20-30 somethings) will have benefits, but they will be dependent on several things: the OASDI payroll tax rate at the time, the ability of the Treasury to find buyers in the future to pay for today's bonds when they come to (at today's projected rates) because the trust fund is not actually hard cash but IOUs that are constantly coming due and are paid for with future buyers (the cash deposits from payroll taxes are actually used for general federal spending -- it's either that or foreign creditors, or cutting spending dramatically), and any changes to benefit amounts such as asset-testing and sliding scale.

I don't know what can be done to educate people of the true nature of the system. I for one don't have a problem paying into a system that provides a safety net for the elderly and disabled. But asset-testing, sliding scale benefits, etc will endure the most needy people get help, not those sitting on a huge nest egg and owning their home outright.