Many complain that Social Security is taking from the young to pay for the old. That is, this transfer is a zero sum game where the winnings of one are equal to the losses of others.
But consider that we play another zero sum game. Think about those who complain about paying for schools because they don't have children or grandchildren in school.
Now if the older people are paying taxes to support public schools and the younger people are paying taxes for seniors' Social Security payments, isn't the combined system a win-win situation?
And there is more to support this win-win situation.
If older people don't pay for children's education where are the doctors going to come from? Police and fire? Government? Inventors of devices and medicines to prolong life? Sports figures to entertain?
If younger people don't pay for older peoples' retirement and health, might the older people stay working longer, leaving fewer jobs for younger people?
And the list goes on. Older people paid for the infra-structure that younger people use today. Would we have highways, communication systems, buildings, and much else that was paid for in full by people now dead?
Showing posts with label seniors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seniors. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Of course I should get more from Social Security than I put in
Many who dislike the idea of Social Security are complaining that recipients are receiving more than they put in. Of course I should get more from Social Security than I put in.
Of course, it is debatable how much more I should get.
OK, why should I get more? Isn't that a bit greedy?
No more greedy than anybody who buys government bonds. They expect payment of interest as well as principal. Since by law Social Security funds are supposed to go into government bonds, then there should be more money available in Social Security than was originally put in.
Social Security is an insurance program, but the reverse of health, house, or auto insurance. In the latter case, the fortunate never get any of their money back. In the case of Social Security or any other pension plan, the fortunate get more than their share back. The less fortunate died before collecting all that they put in.
The real argument should be what should have been paid all along. Some of the past increases bore no reality to the cost of living of many retirees. This is a discussion that would take hundreds of paragraphs more.
P.S. My father's father died before he collected his first Social Security check. My mother died at 65, and, as far as I know, never collected Social Security.
Of course, it is debatable how much more I should get.
OK, why should I get more? Isn't that a bit greedy?
No more greedy than anybody who buys government bonds. They expect payment of interest as well as principal. Since by law Social Security funds are supposed to go into government bonds, then there should be more money available in Social Security than was originally put in.
Social Security is an insurance program, but the reverse of health, house, or auto insurance. In the latter case, the fortunate never get any of their money back. In the case of Social Security or any other pension plan, the fortunate get more than their share back. The less fortunate died before collecting all that they put in.
The real argument should be what should have been paid all along. Some of the past increases bore no reality to the cost of living of many retirees. This is a discussion that would take hundreds of paragraphs more.
P.S. My father's father died before he collected his first Social Security check. My mother died at 65, and, as far as I know, never collected Social Security.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
He made my day!
Morgan Freeman is quoted in the January/February AARP Magazine as wanting to be like Clint Eastwood when Freeman grows up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)