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.
KC
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.
foolishmortal
” 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?
Hokie
Reading the first paragraph of this makes my head hurt. Ow.
Pug
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?
p.lukasiak
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.
Rick
But, but…FDR! Solemn Promise! You can’t touch Sacred Security.
Hopefully, the shameful generational income transfer will be sputtering out soon.
Cordially…
Sojourner
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.
Rick
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…
ppgaz
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?
arkabee
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.
John Cole
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.
Andrew J. Lazarus
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?
ppgaz
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.
Jon H
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.
Jon H
I’d like to see Tierney make his argument in front of, say, a crowd of middle-aged cleaning women, mine workers, waitresses, etc.
Rick
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…
Kimmitt
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.
ppgaz
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.
Barry
Wasn’t Tierney Safire’s replacement?
‘nough said.
Rick
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…
Stefan
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.
Rick
Gotta stop typing with my elbows.
Stefan
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.
ppgaz
“..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!
Rick
..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…
Andrew J. Lazarus
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?!)
Grand Moff Texan
A stroke?
.
Sojourner
Andrew:
Privatizing SS would have put a lot of money into the hands of his Wall Street buddies. Medicare does not.