5 ms·

Not true, there are programs that transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, e.g. social security.

• dragonwriter 8y ago
  Social security (well, the old-age and survivors portion; disability insurance is a little different) transfers wealth from the young to the old, not the rich to the poor.
  • geggam 8y ago
    Social Security is something you pay into. The fact politicans raid the social security fund and bleed it dry shifting the burden to the young isnt the design Social Security is not wealth transferred young to old. Its wealth stored in govt care and because the govt is irresponsible the youth has to be taxed to make up the difference
    • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      Social Security started out as an inter-generational wealth transfer and it still is. The original beneficiaries received benefits without paying in and everybody since then has been paying for their parents. The only reason the "trust fund" has anything in it at all is the population expansion of the baby boom, which is drawing itself down as they retire. And there was never any money to begin with -- it's all government paper. The government collected social security tax, lent the money to itself and immediately spent it. Now it owes itself money. "But it's the social security administration's money" doesn't change anything about where it ultimately comes from -- present day taxpayers.
      • muzz 8y ago
        The trust fund is over $2.5 Trillion
        • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
          In treasury bonds. Whether present day taxpayers pay the money from withholding taxes to cover the bonds or social security taxes directly, it still comes from present day taxpayers. And even that $2.5T is substantially less than the amount they are projected to pay out.
          • muzz 8y ago
            Where else would you suggest the surplus be invested? Do you think there is a safer investment vehicle on the planet?
            • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
              It isn't a matter of investing it in something else. There was never actually any surplus to begin with. If the government had done anything other than lend it to itself, they wouldn't have had that money to fund the programs they voted for. Then they would either have had to pay the full amount from additional taxes or borrow the money and pay interest, which over that time period was a >6% rate and would have been even higher if that amount of debt had actually been issued into the bond market. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to calculate what percentage of the "trust fund" total would have had to be paid in interest at those rates over half a century if they had actually paid it. Spoiler alert, it's most of the total. The net inter-generational transfer is actually substantially more than that, because the true measure of the inter-generational transfer is the debt itself, which exceeds even what's held by social security and medicare. That is what they spent without paying for and what their kids inherit. If they hadn't spent more than they paid there wouldn't be trillions in US government bonds for the "trust fund" to hold. That's the only way to have actually paid for it -- have held a net surplus of that amount, so you pass on net assets rather than net debt. And that isn't what happened.
              • muzz 8y ago
                This is circular logic.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]