U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2014, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,765,919 times
Reputation: 32309

Advertisements

In the quoted portion of someone's post in another thread, I recently read a proposal for the guarantee of financial well-being of seniors by having the government grant every person over 65 $40,000 per year, no questions asked. And yes, married couples would get $80,000. I thought that was so completely insane that I elected to make the discussion of it a separate thread. I have objections on both the practical and the philosophical level.

On the philosophical level, how would young people (who are also voters and tax payers) feel about such a grant of a very comfortable life for every senior when many of the young people are struggling? Such a gross favoritism based on age alone ought to be objectionable to every fair-minded person. There is already quite enough inter-generational resentment without adding fuel to the fire so blatantly.

A more minor but still philosophical issue is how to justify favoring married couples over single people in such a blatant fashion. It does not cost twice as much for two people to live, not nearly so.

Moving to the practical level, how would such a massive give-away be funded? The argument that it would be funded by re-directing existing wasteful spending ignores two facts: First, how would we as a nation agree on the wasteful spending to be eliminated? People have different ideas about what constitutes the most blatant waste. Second, how would we as a nation agree on how the re-directed wasteful spending should be spent? Everyone would have a pet project, such as the massive give-away to seniors, but not everyone would agree because people would have different pet projects.

The level of proposed senior welfare funding is so high as to belong in a fantasy land. Depending on where one lives, the proposed amounts would represent an extremely comfortable way of life - New York City and a few other places excepted, of course.

If it were really possible to mandate a cushy life for all people by legislative fiat (or even for a large subset of people such as those 65 and older), someone would have found a way. But that is not possible, since there is no such thing as a free lunch when it all boils down. All experiments along those lines have ended in failure for excellent reasons, especially as draconian force would have to be involved in the ultimately hopeless task.

We don't live in a Garden of Eden where adequate fruit and other nourishment is ripe for the easy picking. And we seniors do not merit such extraordinary favoritism just by virtue of having survived to a given age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Edina, MN, USA
6,956 posts, read 7,404,127 times
Reputation: 16299
While I'd gladly take it - I think this is wishful thinking. For all the reasons you cited and this country simply can't afford to do that.

Someone has been drinking too much Koolaid or has started something just to see the reactions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:04 PM
 
258 posts, read 234,643 times
Reputation: 567
In the US? Never going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:11 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,032,619 times
Reputation: 18050
Just more free stuff talk this debtor nation can't afford. Heck; even SS is in danger of cuts in coming years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:19 PM
 
877 posts, read 1,078,294 times
Reputation: 1156
$40,000 a year for what exactly? Existing and being old?

The sense of entitlement among people in the US has reached an all time high
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:24 PM
 
526 posts, read 742,828 times
Reputation: 803
probably have to be on assistance entire life to be eligible
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:45 PM
 
5,400 posts, read 6,550,585 times
Reputation: 10477
Quote:
Originally Posted by eidas View Post
probably have to be on assistance entire life to be eligible
ha, true
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:48 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,906 posts, read 18,914,045 times
Reputation: 33851
No reason, just something someone's making up. Very few people need $40,000 more and there is no way to afford to give it to them. Seniors who are having a difficult time financially should receive more help than they do now but that's a different story.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 19,004,474 times
Reputation: 15649
Would that scenario mean giving up one's property and other assets to the gov't and living in gov't-provided senior housing? If so, sounds like that novel The Planner. And in that case, the gov't would inherit (confiscate?) and awful lot of loot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 07:10 PM
 
8,220 posts, read 11,935,652 times
Reputation: 18069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
In the quoted portion of someone's post in another thread, I recently read a proposal for the guarantee of financial well-being of seniors by having the government grant every person over 65 $40,000 per year, no questions asked. And yes, married couples would get $80,000. I thought that was so completely insane that I elected to make the discussion of it a separate thread. I have objections on both the practical and the philosophical level.
It wasn't a proposal; it was an off-handed, off-the-wall, ridiculous comment by an anonymous individual on a message board. You, yourself, even noted above that it is an insane notion. And yet your reaction is to create a separate thread and have a deep philosophical discussion about such a lunatic suggestion?

Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top