Means testing (pension, long-term, moving, spouse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To some extent those of us who are reasonably comfortable are already means-tested, or to put it another way we are already subsidizing the less well off. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will point out that Social Security retirement benefits return a greater percentage of wages to low wage earners than to higher wage earners. And that is only one example. Various other programs for the elderly exist, even if they do not exist in every single community. (Where I live there is a senior ride program which operates seven days a week, for another example. It is free.)
So I would re-frame the question in this way: Is the amount of subsidy which the elderly poor currently receive about right, inadequate, or overly generous? My personal answer is "about right". In other words, I harbor no particular resentment about the way my taxes are currently going to subsidize the elderly poor.
Are they going to some people who are in a fix through their own fault? Of course, but they are also going to others who are genuinely deserving.
Is there a realistic way for government to determine which recipients are genuinely deserving? NO!
See, now thats well reasoned. This is why I come here for answers- smart folks. My thought wasn't wholesale subsidization of the elderly, only helping those most at risk, of which there are many. There are single widows and widowers who have no idea how to avail themselves of these resources you speak of, i'd wager. I cant think of a reason against helping these people; would you rather the money be spent on other things? And i'm certainly not advocating raising taxes for this, just realize efficiencies in other spending or give up something like 30 bucks a month to go to the less fortunate. Strength in numbers, you know?
To some extent those of us who are reasonably comfortable are already means-tested, or to put it another way we are already subsidizing the less well off. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will point out that Social Security retirement benefits return a greater percentage of wages to low wage earners than to higher wage earners. And that is only one example. Various other programs for the elderly exist, even if they do not exist in every single community. (Where I live there is a senior ride program which operates seven days a week, for another example. It is free.)
So I would re-frame the question in this way: Is the amount of subsidy which the elderly poor currently receive about right, inadequate, or overly generous? My personal answer is "about right". In other words, I harbor no particular resentment about the way my taxes are currently going to subsidize the elderly poor.
Are they going to some people who are in a fix through their own fault? Of course, but they are also going to others who are genuinely deserving.
Is there a realistic way for government to determine which recipients are genuinely deserving? NO!
This reasonable post summed up my feelings so well, I won't have to type a duplicate to express my stand on the subject.
See, now thats well reasoned. This is why I come here for answers- smart folks. My thought wasn't wholesale subsidization of the elderly, only helping those most at risk, of which there are many. There are single widows and widowers who have no idea how to avail themselves of these resources you speak of, i'd wager. I cant think of a reason against helping these people; would you rather the money be spent on other things? And i'm certainly not advocating raising taxes for this, just realize efficiencies in other spending or give up something like 30 bucks a month to go to the less fortunate. Strength in numbers, you know?
Man, I sound like a liberal...
You give your thirty dollars. Here's how I'll spend mine.
Hell no.
1) Why should I help people who didn't plan well?
2) When I made minimum wage, I saved. When I made more than minimum wage, I saved. If I couldn't afford something, I didn't buy it. And if you can't afford kids, you don't have them.
To some extent those of us who are reasonably comfortable are already means-tested, or to put it another way we are already subsidizing the less well off. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will point out that Social Security retirement benefits return a greater percentage of wages to low wage earners than to higher wage earners. And that is only one example. Various other programs for the elderly exist, even if they do not exist in every single community. (Where I live there is a senior ride program which operates seven days a week, for another example. It is free.)
So I would re-frame the question in this way: Is the amount of subsidy which the elderly poor currently receive about right, inadequate, or overly generous? My personal answer is "about right". In other words, I harbor no particular resentment about the way my taxes are currently going to subsidize the elderly poor.
Are they going to some people who are in a fix through their own fault? Of course, but they are also going to others who are genuinely deserving.
Is there a realistic way for government to determine which recipients are genuinely deserving? NO!
I would have fully agreed with you until I recently had a chance to see and evaluate Covered California. Now, I'd have to part ways with this sentiment, I see the subsidy tilt as too severe.
As I read all that I can about money management, retirement planning etc, i've read all of the horror stories about those folks who wont have enough money to retire/survive comfortably in their old age. I'm no lib, but how do folks feel about giving up a little bit to help those who didn't plan well or just didn't make enough money to effectively save for retirement?
I'm also for holding Congress' feet to the fire on all of the wasted money every year, i'd rather my tax dollars went to help some poor, elderly American live out their years in comfort than $iss it away on foolish studies or give it to countries that hate our guts. Am I wrong?
I specifically would like my tax dollars to go towards this type of thing. I think that we should first take care of our own before we try to save the world, or rather impress the world that we are "the best". It's shameful that we do not do more for our own less fortunate.
See, now thats well reasoned. This is why I come here for answers- smart folks. My thought wasn't wholesale subsidization of the elderly, only helping those most at risk, of which there are many. There are single widows and widowers who have no idea how to avail themselves of these resources you speak of, i'd wager. I cant think of a reason against helping these people; would you rather the money be spent on other things? And i'm certainly not advocating raising taxes for this, just realize efficiencies in other spending or give up something like 30 bucks a month to go to the less fortunate. Strength in numbers, you know?
Man, I sound like a liberal...
You are making the great assumption that most of us do NOT contribute to charities that serve the less fortunate - charities like the Salvation Army and Meals on Wheels. Or how many of us assist our neighbors who are in need.
In general, there are substantial subsidized services geared toward the elderly. Many communities offer subsidized housing where the elderly poor get a good apartment for $100-200/month when the market rent is 4-5x that. They are eligible for Medicare. They can receive both food stamps as well as private aid through food banks. (I am actually more concerned with the rural elderly poor who are often neglected by government programs.)
In every community that I have lived in, there are any number of senior advocates in most churches, health facilities, and other social agencies who direct people to all the social services. Add in all the work of AARP.
Personally, as a group, seniors are well taken care of. I would rather direct my donations to underprivileged children.
Where are the families of these poor seniors? Should they not bear some responsibility for meeting the needs of their elder relatives? None of my older relatives go a week without a check-in call to see how they are doing and an update on their medical appointments, when necessary.
In 1935, my grandfather stated that one of his major reservations of the social security system was that over time, people would see no need to take care of their elder relatives. To a cwrtain extent, we are seeing it now.
Probably every single one of us would prefer our tax dollars go to something other than what they do.
The reality is that when more is given to any particular cause, it's just to going add to government spending, not just shift the dollars around.
Doesn't that reality change the question to "should taxes go up in order to provide more to those that didn't plan better?"
Sorry, I'm more a cynic ( I prefer realist )than an idealist.
People who did not plan and save enough to live comfortably in retirenent have tons of welfare benefits they can suck off..er, rely on.
More money from ME??
They and those who want it for them can GO POUND SAND!
My issue is why the focus on helping needy seniors so often carries the suggestion that the answer should come from other seniors and not society as a whole. Why are always so focused on redistribution, especially redistribution within groups instead of across groups? We have to be careful not to create disincentives which for some reason some folks seem compelled to want to create. I know seniors who will spend every cent they get and not save a cent and you can see that sentiment in this forum some times. We have folks proclaiming a desire to die broke and how the heck do you time that? So when they are still living and broke?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
