Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: misterrob
Because seniors continue to demand more and more services that they never paid for.

Based on what theory?

You pay for auto insurance. You expect it to pay if/when you need it.

Those 'freeloading' seniors have been paying into SS (it originally was Social Security Insurance) and Medicare for DECADES.

And those 'freeloading' seniors helped provide YOU with the country that has one of the highest standards of living in the history of the planet.

If anything, YOU own those 'freeloading' seniors a huge debt of gratitude (and some tax dollars -- lol).
6 posted on 10/03/2009 5:53:23 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: TomGuy

No, the previous commentator is right. Benefits paid out to current recipients FAR AND AWAY exceed anyhting they ever paid in, even assuming a real rate of return equal to the market.


7 posted on 10/03/2009 6:34:42 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

You are ignorant about entitlement spending. I suspect you are a senior demanding more government benefits. Social Security and Medicare are generational Ponzi schemes. Early retirees contributed relatively little but received increasing benefit levels. Congress has raised benefit levels many times to buy votes of seniors like yourself demanding higher benefit levels. Congress substantially raised payroll taxes starting in the mid 80s to pay for benefits so the situation will be reversed for most baby boom retirees. They have paid lots of payroll taxes, especially for Social Security. High end earners have paid very large amounts of Medicare taxes since the mid 90s because the earnings cap was lifted.

If you are a baby boom retiree, you have some reasonable justification for feeling ripped off. Otherwise, you are just demanding more welfare.

From a national economic perspective, your position as a baby boom or greatest generation does not matter. Congress has spent excess payroll that should have been saved to support retirees. The ship is sinking from the combined weight of excess government spending. Government spending will be drastically curtailed directly or indirectly. I prefer direct reductions with initiatives to produce such as elimination of Social Security benefits in exchange for opting out of payroll taxes. Indirect reductions are much more likely however. The Democrats will raise taxes (even on the elderly). The value of the dollar will fall leading to inflation and other woes.

A day of reckoning is coming. The combined weight of unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal pensions, state and local pensions) along with huge increases in other government spending will have a profound impact on the economy.


10 posted on 10/03/2009 8:01:55 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

I will draw you a nice analogy.

If you pay $1,500 a year over 40 years into a fund that is supposed to pay for all of your expenses then at best you would have saved about $180K using a 5% interest rate.

Most people have $1,500 a year deducted from their paychecks/employer match for Medicare savings.

Please tell me how that amount is anywhere close to covering the cost of someone for the last 12-15 years of their life? It isn’t and by law the general tax fund is subsidizing the cost. People who receive subsidies are freeloading off of someone else.

And, insurance is based on an expectations of potential accidents. It is not by its nature a service plan.


13 posted on 10/03/2009 8:26:01 AM PDT by misterrob (A society that burdens future generations with debt can not be considered moral or just)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson