• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

In after Baud. Damn.

‘Museums aren’t America’s attic for its racist shit.’

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

“But what about the lurkers?”

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

It’s a new day. Light all those Biden polls of young people on fire and throw away the ashes.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. don’t touch it.”

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Bark louder, little dog.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Humorous / I Would Give Anything

I Would Give Anything

by John Cole|  June 14, 20052:44 am| 28 Comments

This post is in: Humorous

FacebookTweetEmail

What I wouldn’t do to be a fly on the wall of Kevin Drum’s house when he reads this:

With the help of groups like AARP, the elderly have learned to fight for the right to retire earlier and get bigger benefits than the previous generation – all financed by making succeeding generations pay higher taxes than they ever did themselves.

The result is a system that burdens the young and creates perverse incentives for people to retire when they’re still middle-aged. Once you’ve worked 35 years, more work often yields only a tiny increase in your benefits (sometimes none at all), but you still have to keep paying the onerous Social Security tax, which has more than doubled over the last half century.

If the elderly were willing to work longer, there would be lower taxes on everyone and fewer struggling young families. There would be more national wealth and tax revenue available to help the needy, including people no longer able to work as well as the many elderly below the poverty line because they get so little Social Security.

I mean, I would pay cash money to watch his reaction.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Let’s Clear Something Up
Next Post: Downing Street Again »

Reader Interactions

28Comments

  1. 1.

    KC

    June 14, 2005 at 3:23 am

    John, this is a pretty rotten column, don’t you think? I can understand not liking Social Security since it is a pay-as-you-go social insurance system wherein current workers pay for current retirees. However, Tierney is really stretching the truth by hanging his column on this sentence: Its pension system has a stronger safety net for the older poor than America’s (relative to each country’s wages) and more incentives for people to work, because Chileans’ contributions go directly into their own private accounts instead of a common pool like Social Security. What exactly is he trying to say here, that
    the Chilean system for old people is “stronger” than ours, really? That our problem is that Social Security has been co-opted by ruthless elderly folks who want to get off easy after 65 years of working? I find what he says odd, especially since his own paper covered the severe problems with the Chilean system pretty thoroughly right here, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A13FC3C5F0C748EDDA80894DD404482. Then again, I guess the silliness of the column is why you’d like to see Drum’s face when he reads it. I hate to say it, but I think Drum will answer it too, easily enough.

  2. 2.

    foolishmortal

    June 14, 2005 at 5:53 am

    ” you still have to keep paying the onerous Social Security tax”
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a cap on benefits/SSTax?

  3. 3.

    Hokie

    June 14, 2005 at 7:46 am

    Reading the first paragraph of this makes my head hurt. Ow.

  4. 4.

    Pug

    June 14, 2005 at 7:51 am

    Going after the pampered old slackards makes about as much political sense as going after white Christians. If the idea is to stir up the young to overthrow the tyranny of the pampered old folks, forget it.

    The old will trounce the young at the polls. Always have, always will.

    By the way, who was it doubled that Social Security tax? It wasn’t Saint Ronald and Bob Dole, was it?

  5. 5.

    p.lukasiak

    June 14, 2005 at 7:55 am

    If I was sitting on my ass in an air-conditioned building, writing complete bullshit all day and earning a six-figure salary for doing so, I’d be happy to continue to work until I’m 70….

    But I actually do physical labor, and I’m not in an air-conditioned building, and I’m not earning a six-figure salary, so John Tierney can go fuck himself and his rich White attitude.

  6. 6.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 7:59 am

    But, but…FDR! Solemn Promise! You can’t touch Sacred Security.

    Hopefully, the shameful generational income transfer will be sputtering out soon.

    Cordially…

  7. 7.

    Sojourner

    June 14, 2005 at 9:03 am

    People like Rick need to keep one thing in mind… Get rid of social security and granny shows up at your house. That’s assuming, of course, that granny has some place to go.

    I am so f’ing tired of the selfishness of people like them. Oh waaaa!

    The reality is, half of all senior citizens were living below the poverty level when SS was introduced. Rick may think that’s a good idea but fortunately this country was not created on the basis of selfishness.

    And don’t give me that crap about how good private accounts are. A young father dies early. He doesn’t have squat in his account. Today, his kids get SS. With private accounts, tough shit.

    The markets experience another major loss. Oh well. You lose.

    It’s social SECURITY, not social retirement planning. You know, a safety net for everyone.

  8. 8.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 9:57 am

    That our problem is that Social Security has been co-opted by ruthless elderly folks who want to get off easy after 65 years of working?

    That suggests a retirement age of 82-83. In that instance, even I am ready to declare the system solvent for many decades to come.

    Which doesn’t address it’s manifest injustice to the masses who are taxed and taxed, yet never get any return. But dear me, I don’t wish to sicken delicate sensibilities here.

    Let’s just say that if state lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math, then IRS refunds are their savings plans, and Social Security is their retirement plan.

    Cordially…

  9. 9.

    ppgaz

    June 14, 2005 at 9:58 am

    Not sure what the joke on Kevin Drum is supposed to be.

    I speak as one approaching retirement age. My senility-clouded recollection is that asking people to work longer as they live longer has been part of the scheme for as long as I can remember. Seems to me I was hearing this 30 years ago. Seems to me it makes sense, and seems to me it’s fair.

    Retire early, get lower benefits. Work longer, get more benefits. A sensible tradeoff and a practical incentive. Where’s the beef?

    Hell, I would have been happy to retire at 50, but I have no problem with the actuarial realities of the situation.

    As for the right to retire earlier and AARP — is the SS schedule retiring people earlier today than it did 30 years ago?

  10. 10.

    arkabee

    June 14, 2005 at 10:25 am

    What universe are you people living in where the “elderly” “retire” “comfortably” on “social security”?

    You want my father to keep working past 65? Great, you got it! He’s 73 years old, if he stops working they won’t take in enough to pay mortgage AND eat. So he continues to work. and therefor receives less Social Security.

    “Which doesn’t address it’s manifest injustice to the masses who are taxed and taxed, yet never get any return.”

    You want your return? you want your return on your “tax” “investments”? Go work for a company for 30+ years, with the agreement that as part of your wage package you will receive a pension, and then have the company file bankruptcy and DEFAULT ON YOUR PENSION.

    There, you get your return on your investment.

  11. 11.

    John Cole

    June 14, 2005 at 10:35 am

    Umm. I didn’t think I put forward a point on this post, other than I know the piece will give Kevin Drum a stroke for this line:

    If the elderly were willing to work longer, there would be lower taxes on everyone and fewer struggling young families.

  12. 12.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    June 14, 2005 at 10:39 am

    If the members of the US Military would work for free, we would have lower taxes, therefore fewer struggling young families, etc. So what? And Tierney’s point is just about as silly.

    I’d like to see some real evidence that Social Security is promoting early retirement and that the Social Security tax is a significant disincentive to working longer. Given that many people’s salaries are greater than the Social Security beneftis, this seems unlikely. Did you find the absence of any numbers or citations suspicious?

  13. 13.

    ppgaz

    June 14, 2005 at 10:42 am

    OK, well, I can’t speak for Mr. Drum, but for me, working longer is something I’m willing to do. It makes sense and addresses the actuarial shift. And, my wife will like it, because it keeps me out of the house.

  14. 14.

    Jon H

    June 14, 2005 at 10:50 am

    It’s not particularly surprising that a guy who must earn six figures for the hard work of putting out two columns a week thinks it’s not a big deal for people to work longer.

    Why, he could keep doing his job until he’s 120, without a problem.

    Of course, pundits and think tank eggheads who take this position generally have no inkling what a longer working life means to the typical American.

  15. 15.

    Jon H

    June 14, 2005 at 10:56 am

    I’d like to see Tierney make his argument in front of, say, a crowd of middle-aged cleaning women, mine workers, waitresses, etc.

  16. 16.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 11:05 am

    You want your return? you want your return on your “tax” “investments”? Go work for a company for 30+ years, with the agreement that as part of your wage package you will receive a pension, and then have the company file bankruptcy and DEFAULT ON YOUR PENSION.

    That’s analogous to the flaw in SS. With defined benefit pensions, as with SS, it’s a case of taking on too much liability.

    Hey, if I cling to life another 17 years, I’ll start “getting mine.” Won’t be much left for you young folks, though.

    Cordially…

  17. 17.

    Kimmitt

    June 14, 2005 at 12:14 pm

    Won’t be much left for you young folks, though.

    Sure, but Social Security has nothing to do with that; it’s the looting of the Treasury under this Administration which is going to cause the meltdown.

  18. 18.

    ppgaz

    June 14, 2005 at 12:19 pm

    Shhh …. that’s supposed to be a secret. In fact, hiding that secret is a large part of the whole scheme. You’ll blow their cover.

    Once GWB has you convinced that you should carve out “private” investment from your account, and buy US bonds, then he can help himself to the money promised in the stash of bonds known as the Trust Fund …. you know, those “pieces of paper stuffed into filing cabinets” that he says are worthless.

    Of course he wants them to be worthless, that way he can steal the money.

    Once the trust fund is gone, and the benefit-revenue scheme is shifted, they figure that the middle class won’t want to subsidize the poor, and SS is dead.

  19. 19.

    Barry

    June 14, 2005 at 12:37 pm

    Wasn’t Tierney Safire’s replacement?

    ‘nough said.

  20. 20.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 1:16 pm

    Social Security has nothing to do with that; it’s the looting of the Treasury under this Administration which is going to cause the meltdown.

    Oh, dear. I see know the President’s difficulty: in invincibility of reform opponents’ ignorance.

    “Nothing to do with that!!” That’d be funny, if there were no consequences ahead. But 2+2 still add up to 4, despite your contrary wishes.

    Cordially…

  21. 21.

    Stefan

    June 14, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    Tierney rather stupidly ignores the fact that for many people it’s literally impossible for them to keep working as they get older since companies will refuse to hire them. Just how large do you think the job market is for 60-70 year old middle managers, for example? Companies are trying to shed their older workers as fast as possible to avoid being stuck paying for their health care.

    And that’s not even addressing the fact that those who do manual labor all their lives (farmers, soldiers, construction workers, etc.) really can’t work past 60 or so. Their bodies break down and tasks they used to perform with ease become physically impossible.

  22. 22.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    Gotta stop typing with my elbows.

  23. 23.

    Stefan

    June 14, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    Tierney rather stupidly ignores the fact that for many people it’s literally impossible for them to keep working as they get older since companies will refuse to hire them. Just how large do you think the job market is for 60-70 year old middle managers, for example? Companies are trying to shed their older workers as fast as possible to avoid being stuck paying for their health care.

    And that’s not even addressing the fact that those who do manual labor all their lives (farmers, soldiers, construction workers, etc.) really can’t work past 60 or so. Their bodies break down and tasks they used to perform with ease become physically impossible.

  24. 24.

    ppgaz

    June 14, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    “..those who do manual labor all their lives (farmers, soldiers, construction workers, etc.) really can’t work past 60 or so. Their bodies break down and tasks they used to perform with ease become physically impossible.”

    Yeah, but we can still post by typing with a stick held in our teeth!

  25. 25.

    Rick

    June 14, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    ..those who do manual labor all their lives (farmers, soldiers, construction workers, etc.) really can’t work past 60 or so.

    Luckily, we don’t require soldiers to work past 60. In the event, there’s a separate pension system for servicepersons, in addition to–but diminished (off-set) slightly on account of–SS.

    Cordially…

  26. 26.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    June 14, 2005 at 4:27 pm

    As far as I can tell, even Republican economists agree (if you hold their feet to the fire) that the shortfalls in descending order of importance are the current account (do you remember GWB promising to keep the budget in surplus during the 2000 campaign?), the Medicare budget, and last and least the Old Age component of Social Security. Why are the conservatives concentrating on the least critical, from a number crunching point of view? Maybe because they thought it was politically vulnerable, and they’ve hated it from the moment FDR introduced it! In order to cover his current account deficit, Bush wants to welsh on the promises to current workers. Charming.

    Professor DeLong expounds, although his preso appears to be totally mucked up in software on any of my browsers. (Maybe it only works on mac Safari?!)

  27. 27.

    Grand Moff Texan

    June 14, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    A stroke?
    .

  28. 28.

    Sojourner

    June 14, 2005 at 6:06 pm

    Andrew:

    Privatizing SS would have put a lot of money into the hands of his Wall Street buddies. Medicare does not.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Chief Oshkosh on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:04pm)
  • A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan) on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:04pm)
  • Bex on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:03pm)
  • Another Scott on War for Ukraine Day 781: A Brief(ish) Sunday Night Update (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:02pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:02pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!