There have been a number of postings that imply that the "elderly" are wealthy, getting more than they deserve and that they are milking the system. One even quoted a guy at work who told him "Save Social Security - Stop feeding the old people!". Is this degenerating into inter-generational warfare? There is a widespread misconception about the elderly -- most aren't wealthy, milking the system, or even getting (or keeping) as much as they deserve.
Some of the misconception must stem from statements such as that made by the Pennsylvania Lottery ads that say that proceeds from it benefit older Americans. That is untrue -- the proceeds benefit LOWER INCOME older Americans. Others don't get a dime from it. Also, is there jealousy over our getting a 10% discount at SOME merchants? You know that we wouldn't get it if they didn't see an advantage to giving it to us -- most don't give us a discount out of the goodness of their hearts. Then, how about the fact that we pay full retail price for our prescriptions or uncovered medical supplies (plus a probable markup to make up for what the pharmacy loses when it fills an HMO or insurance plan script)? All we want is what is owed to us -- all our working lives we were promised that if we paid into the system for 30, 40, 50 years, we would be provided with a retirement BASE -- not a retirement, but a base upon which to build. I clipped an article some time ago that stated that an individual who had paid the maximum payroll tax for 44 years and then retired at 65, would get his or her money (including the employer's taxes and interest) back in 18 years -- by age 83. That is beyond the average IRS life-span. Where are the facts beyond the belief that current retirees are getting more than they deserve or paid for?
You people that are advocating that seniors just go off somewhere and just fade away are obviously seeing seniors living somewhat comfortably, perhaps with some luxuries that you wish you had, and think that it is because they are being subsidized by Social Security -- the Social Security that you may never see. What you don't realize is that, for most, it took a lifetime of working and saving to reach that point. The younger generation wants to start where the older generation stopped -- what were once luxuries are now considered by the younger generation to be necessities. Imagine what your life would be like with no air conditioning, one (or no) car, having to shovel coal into a furnace several times a day, one radio (AM only) -- no T.V., no tape decks or CD's, no computers or even calculators, no swimming pools, no gas powered mowers or snow blowers, ¼ acre or smaller lots, and no interstate highways. Drive through the older parts of the city (in your SUV or sports car) and take a look at the older homes -- that is what we grew up in. Contrast that with the large homes and lots in the newer suburbs. Try saving for retirement without a company pension plan, without a tax advantaged IRA or 401-K, or without a tax-free Roth IRA.
We didn't create the current problems -- we aren't responsible for the declining birthrate. Abortion on demand and smaller families caused that. To those who want the elderly to just "go away" I say: Where would you be if your parents or grandparents had had only one or two children? Also, remember that you will most likely be "elderly" yourself someday. I think we should stop this inter-generational sniping and work to find a solution that doesn't means test benefits and that will assure the solvency of the system for the near future so that ALL will get back an equitable amount. And then work for a long term solution.
There was an earlier posting that I believe stated that something like 96% of the problem would be solved if there were no cap on the amount of wages that were subject to the SS payroll tax. Why should there be a cap at all on the amount? By what criteria is it currently capped at $60,000+?? How about making ALL wages subject to the payroll tax -- in order to avoid a huge shock to those who are mortgaged to the hilt, phase it in by, say, 1% per year. At the same time, cut back on Government waste -- switch to a 17% "flat tax" and cut out the huge expense of administrating the present tax code, both the costs of complying and the costs of enforcing. The present tax code places a huge burden upon our economy. Also, cut out many of the current Federal programs that are ineffective and, in fact, counterproductive. Doing this would free up more than enough funds to solve the problem and, at the same time, would stimulate the economy.
