3 ms·
This is an appealing argument, it's only flaw is that it is nonsensical. The current 'old' also inherited a built environment and a great deal of basic researc
by glangdale 8y ago
This is an appealing argument, it's only flaw is that it is nonsensical.
The current 'old' also inherited a built environment and a great deal of basic research, and if you project back far enough (not far!) they barely paid anything for it either. Those working in the 40s and early 50s paid almost nothing (in terms of having to pay taxes for other people's benefits) for the infrastructure that they inherited.
It also somehow suggests that the bulk of historical economic activity was the development of long-lasting capital works that outlived the users, which is odd.
I think we already have enough spurious arguments for feather-bedding relatively well-off old people without inventing weird new ones. The monumental voting power of the old has ensured that they collectively do pretty well for themselves; astoundingly well, say, compared to children living in poverty.
- gaius 8y agoThe current 'old' also inherited a built environment and a great deal of basic research The current generation of pensioners paid towards the previous generation of pensioners without quibbling. It’s only millennials who take it all for granted and don’t want to pay what’s fair.
- glangdale 8y agoOK, now you're just ranting and/or making stuff up. It's not actually true that the current generation of pensioners paid towards the previous generation, as social security taxation didn't really exist back then or was trivial in comparison in terms of #s of dependents and amount paid out. Every generation takes stuff for granted, true. Also, they play their music too loud and disregard the eternal verities (c.f. ancient Greeks).
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> The current generation of pensioners paid towards the previous generation of pensioners The gaping holes in public-sector pension funds beg to differ.