3 ms·

Sorry but I call "old man argument". It's the same argument that my dad makes. "Things are bad, it's better abroad" which more or less leads to his "the world i

Sorry but I call "old man argument". It's the same argument that my dad makes. "Things are bad, it's better abroad" which more or less leads to his "the world is going to end" diatribe. I think this "white flight" premise is a lot more to do with the older generation who among other things earn more money and thus pay more tax and more easily fall into "the country's gone to pot" way on thinking. In the UK You certainly saw a number of people nearing retirement age move to the continent (Spain mostly) on the back-end of the housing boom. I don't think "the current situation" has changed one iota, its only that you've aged and now see things differently. I would suggest you help out the younger generation by staying and helping them pay the tax bill and possibly generating some jobs for them. Also the US has lotsa undeveloped land. So idk what you're talking about there.....

CWuestefeld 17y ago
There's a kernel of truth in your argument. At least some of the effect is changing perception. But some is changing realities as well. My investment advisor tells me that with the GWB tax cuts expiring, scheduled increases in capital gains taxes, and the government's refusal to address the AMT problem, that my tax situation is changing drastically enough that I need to change my investment strategy. I'm paying into Social Security to give my grandparents more money than they ever paid in, and covering the shortfall created by my parents' generation running up huge deficits and borrowing the money from SS. On the other side, you're asking me to help out the younger generation pay their tax bills. And stuck in the middle, I find that any responsible behavior on my part is answered by looting the savings from my frugality to give to reward the profligate. I'm paying down my mortgage as fast as I can, while underwriting the costs for those who bought McMansions and can't afford them. Those of us who bought economical cars are paying part of the costs for fuel hogs to trade in for better mileage. I'm quite certain that after all the savings I've done for old age, the long term care insurance I've paid 5-digits into, etc., the government is going to see that I have too many privileges (that I've worked for, and lived frugally to amass) and take away more of what I've had to give to the wasteful. Every day I see another version of the ant-and-grasshopper story. I don't think you can blame me for frustration. And you really ought to worry about the moral hazard it's causing. I fear that it leads to a feedback cycle, where the problem gets worse and worse.
- Quarrelsome 17y ago
  I'm not asking you to pay their tax bills. I'm asking you not to leave the younger generation in the lurch. All over the world the baby boomers are stumbling into retirement. In a lot of countries this poses a serious problem as this: * represents a significant voting block * makes large demands on healthcare * makes large demands on pensions And this is on top of the huge deficits that most western countries currently have. I envisage the new generation having to pay for a lot of the costs of the baby boomers while also representing a smaller voting block. This is made even worse in countries with less land (Japan and most of Western Europe) as this generation is already struggling to get onto the property ladder. These being the people that don't have enough money to afford an "investment advisor". What makes this state of affairs even worse is that the older generation who did well are starting to move abroad thereby denying the country of their tax. Of those that remain a significant proportion are anti-immigration. This leads me wonder how the pyramid schemes that are pensions and healthcare are actually going to be affordable when the pyramid becomes inverted and the voting block are anti-immigration.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    While you recognize that so much of this is a pyramid scheme, it seems to me that you're saying I've got to keep paying just so that the pyramid can keep going. Is there ever a point where it's OK to say "this is wrong, we must stop"? You're also assuming an extremely high degree of responsibility for neighbors. Now, I'm not going to go religiously Ayn Rand on you. I acknowledge that society is interdependent, and I couldn't have achieved as much as I have without neighbors that work together. But I think you're going too far. There are things I'd like to do in my life, and for those that are most important, I'm consciously laying things out in a way that should allow me to get there. This isn't without some pain. There are plenty of things lower on my priority list that I must forgo in order to get to the high-priority ones. I don't have an iPhone, I don't have an LCD TV, let alone HD. My wife and I each have a car: mine is 8 years old with 108,000 miles; hers is 7 with 130,000 miles. We rarely eat out. We don't have fancy furniture: much of it is from WalMart, as is much of my clothing. We use credit cards for convenience, and have never run a balance on them. This is not an extravagant lifestyle, this is thrift. Yet I see every day people living extravagantly: leasing cars and turning them over every 2-3 years; huge houses, refinanced at 45 years old so they'll be paying until they're 75; cigarettes and expensive drinks; $900 purses and fancy shoes. The result is that I have more assets. Yet I constantly hear complaints about how unfair it is that people have more in the bank, and those "lucky" few should have to shoulder the burdens that frequently result from the profligacy of the indebted. So I make myself suffer to save. And it seems that I'm to be made to suffer later, too, as my savings are looted. But on the other side of the screen, those living high on the hog will, by virtue of their very wastefulness, get a claim on proceeds of my frugality, allowing them to continue their party. How do you expect me to feel that I owe this to them? You say that I should help the younger generation by helping them shoulder some of the tax burden. But isn't paying the debts of the grasshopper creating moral hazard, doing harm to the younger generation by showing them that the path to happiness is finding an ant to carry them along?

CWuestefeld 17y ago

There's a kernel of truth in your argument. At least some of the effect is changing perception. But some is changing realities as well. My investment advisor tells me that with the GWB tax cuts expiring, scheduled increases in capital gains taxes, and the government's refusal to address the AMT problem, that my tax situation is changing drastically enough that I need to change my investment strategy. I'm paying into Social Security to give my grandparents more money than they ever paid in, and covering the shortfall created by my parents' generation running up huge deficits and borrowing the money from SS. On the other side, you're asking me to help out the younger generation pay their tax bills. And stuck in the middle, I find that any responsible behavior on my part is answered by looting the savings from my frugality to give to reward the profligate. I'm paying down my mortgage as fast as I can, while underwriting the costs for those who bought McMansions and can't afford them. Those of us who bought economical cars are paying part of the costs for fuel hogs to trade in for better mileage. I'm quite certain that after all the savings I've done for old age, the long term care insurance I've paid 5-digits into, etc., the government is going to see that I have too many privileges (that I've worked for, and lived frugally to amass) and take away more of what I've had to give to the wasteful. Every day I see another version of the ant-and-grasshopper story. I don't think you can blame me for frustration. And you really ought to worry about the moral hazard it's causing. I fear that it leads to a feedback cycle, where the problem gets worse and worse.

Quarrelsome 17y ago
I'm not asking you to pay their tax bills. I'm asking you not to leave the younger generation in the lurch. All over the world the baby boomers are stumbling into retirement. In a lot of countries this poses a serious problem as this: * represents a significant voting block * makes large demands on healthcare * makes large demands on pensions And this is on top of the huge deficits that most western countries currently have. I envisage the new generation having to pay for a lot of the costs of the baby boomers while also representing a smaller voting block. This is made even worse in countries with less land (Japan and most of Western Europe) as this generation is already struggling to get onto the property ladder. These being the people that don't have enough money to afford an "investment advisor". What makes this state of affairs even worse is that the older generation who did well are starting to move abroad thereby denying the country of their tax. Of those that remain a significant proportion are anti-immigration. This leads me wonder how the pyramid schemes that are pensions and healthcare are actually going to be affordable when the pyramid becomes inverted and the voting block are anti-immigration.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  While you recognize that so much of this is a pyramid scheme, it seems to me that you're saying I've got to keep paying just so that the pyramid can keep going. Is there ever a point where it's OK to say "this is wrong, we must stop"? You're also assuming an extremely high degree of responsibility for neighbors. Now, I'm not going to go religiously Ayn Rand on you. I acknowledge that society is interdependent, and I couldn't have achieved as much as I have without neighbors that work together. But I think you're going too far. There are things I'd like to do in my life, and for those that are most important, I'm consciously laying things out in a way that should allow me to get there. This isn't without some pain. There are plenty of things lower on my priority list that I must forgo in order to get to the high-priority ones. I don't have an iPhone, I don't have an LCD TV, let alone HD. My wife and I each have a car: mine is 8 years old with 108,000 miles; hers is 7 with 130,000 miles. We rarely eat out. We don't have fancy furniture: much of it is from WalMart, as is much of my clothing. We use credit cards for convenience, and have never run a balance on them. This is not an extravagant lifestyle, this is thrift. Yet I see every day people living extravagantly: leasing cars and turning them over every 2-3 years; huge houses, refinanced at 45 years old so they'll be paying until they're 75; cigarettes and expensive drinks; $900 purses and fancy shoes. The result is that I have more assets. Yet I constantly hear complaints about how unfair it is that people have more in the bank, and those "lucky" few should have to shoulder the burdens that frequently result from the profligacy of the indebted. So I make myself suffer to save. And it seems that I'm to be made to suffer later, too, as my savings are looted. But on the other side of the screen, those living high on the hog will, by virtue of their very wastefulness, get a claim on proceeds of my frugality, allowing them to continue their party. How do you expect me to feel that I owe this to them? You say that I should help the younger generation by helping them shoulder some of the tax burden. But isn't paying the debts of the grasshopper creating moral hazard, doing harm to the younger generation by showing them that the path to happiness is finding an ant to carry them along?