4 ms·

The US federal gov’t spends about 3x as much on those over the age of 65 than it does those under the age of 18 (including transfer payments to parents of those

The US federal gov’t spends about 3x as much on those over the age of 65 than it does those under the age of 18 (including transfer payments to parents of those children)[0]. Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote. [0]https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/23xx/doc2300/fsec.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/23x...

selimthegrim 6y ago
Why so?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  The young have little/no independent earning capacity. The investment we put in the young has a much longer time to accrue positive personal, social and economic benefits. Positive interventions in youth poverty and social stability reduce lifelong skill and mental health deficits that promote adult health, wellness and independence.
an_opabinia 6y ago
I think you flipped the numbers my dude. The federal government spent "about $615 billion—on transfer payments and services for people age 65 or older" in 2000, and "Federal spending on children in 2000 will total about $148 billion, or $175 billion if payments to the children’s parents are included"
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Indeed, I did. Edited to avoid arguing against my own position.
tachyonbeam 6y ago
I'm assuming you mean the US spends 33% as much on those under 18 as it does on those over 65 (otherwise your comment about voting makes no sense)? If so, it seem sensible for the government to spend more on the elderly, simply because they cost most and there is nobody else to pay for it. People under 18 typically have one or two parents to care for them. Older people don't have parents and don't necessarily have family to pay for their housing, food, etc. Then you also have to factor in that healthcare costs for the elderly are necessarily more expensive. Not saying kids don't deserve to be well-cared for. I was a welfare kid and I'm glad there were welfare programs. Just saying I think we'll all be glad we can also get some help when we're over 65, especially if we can't count on our family (I have no siblings and may not have children).
- sillyconesally 6y ago
  There is net negative value in keeping people alive in their retirement age. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 Bill is right. Fortunately, Covid mostly effects the elderly and is helping to correct this situation without uncomfortable "death panels". The other positive is that this will get everyone on board with a global digital identity registry, which will help with everything from climate change mitigation to solving global inequality.
- Cederfjard 6y ago
  I feel like the comment about voting makes perfect sense? They’re saying that children don’t vote, but old people do, so of course it’s the latter group that gets the most resources - they vote, so they have power over politicians, so politicians cater to them. That said, I think you have a good point with the rest of your comment. Edit: Oh I think I see the confusion now. Did the grandparent change their comment? At any rate, my understanding is that they’re saying that for each dollar the government spends on a child, it’s spending three dollars on a person over 65.
bko 6y ago
US spending more than average OECD country on education in relative terms (GDP) and even more in absolute terms due to higher GDP It's just that high absolute amount of medicare spending throws off the comparison. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_education.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_educat...
- Tossito190 6y ago
  If you throw money at a black hole, and put the expenditures under the "education" column, that's where it will be counted. You should see the inane &#@* they buy, and the volumes of it they purchase.
kortilla 6y ago
That includes social security. What a stupid comparison. The whole point of social security is a government retirement program based on you putting money into it.
- ghaff 6y ago
  And another decent chunk is federal civilian and military pensions which is also a benefit earned by working.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote. The most interesting place I've seen this type of argument made it along these lines: - US policy is for housing to appreciate in cost over time - Housing is demanded by young people starting new households, and freed up by old people dying or moving into group housing. - Housing policy is thus a massive ongoing transfer of wealth from incipient households to long-established ones. - This is no way for a non-dysfunctional society to operate
- sudosteph 6y ago
  That dynamic is actually one of the reasons I think Corey Booker's "baby bonds" idea is so clever. If a child enters adulthood with some amount that has grown in a way that matches up with the economic growth at large, then maybe they won't be locked out of housing ownership.
  - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
    There is not enough housing. The solution to rising prices isn't giving people more money to further bid up the price, but to increase the supply of housing which would lower (or at the very least, slow the growth of) housing prices.
    - dan-robertson 6y ago
      Rising house prices are not a technical problem. Having house prices fall is a very big political problem.
dillondoyle 6y ago
I LOVE that West Wing episode. A group of kids get shuffled around the white house, not important, ignored. The leader of his school group gets to ask a question to President Bartlet after impressing a staffer. "Do you think the budget deficit is especially unfair to younger Americans?" -> " a follow up, do you think we'd have such a large deficit if children were allowed to vote?" Such a good use of debate. I think it's worth debating whether to give teens the right to vote. In my mind at least to 13 and up - but it's capricious / hard to draw the line or come up with 'tests' that aren't flat out repeating our disgusting past treatment of Black Americans. The West Wing episode [clip below] spells out some of the argument: I miss the West Wing universe. Would be awesome to see a reboot optimistic show about getting things accomplished, showing a vision for how it's possible to tackle climate change and our other ailments. But move the show past today's progress (it does not treat women well/give them voice, stance on gay marriage etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A
- mjevans 6y ago
  An A or B in highschool level Social Studies (how your government works) sounds like a good baseline; but that course would have to be moved down to middle-school.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    That was my first thought but there are so many potential pitfalls & problems. What about learning disabled, disadvantaged, just having no access or poor school/lack of opportunity etc. And what if you fail!? we can't deny the right to vote because you can't pass a test. That's what we did to black Americans. though to be honest I'm the type that judge people who don't vote. I get mad when people say 'but it doesn't do anything' but they don't vote!!! I think it should be mandatory it's the least you can do for our country. You don't have to vote for anyone can always write sponge bob or black it out as an F you to the system. Or better yet, work to elect people & pass measures that change the system!
    - dan-robertson 6y ago
sokoloff 6y ago
The overwhelming majority of that spending is social security and other retirement programs which are earned (and often paid-for) benefits from a lifetime of work. The next largest (by far) category is Medicare which was largely, but not entirely, paid for by a lifetime of work. Take just the retirement program figures out and the figures are much closer to what you prefer. Take out the half of Medicare that was paid for by seniors and it’s even closer.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  And by "earned" you're evoking a moral argument, not a financial or legal one, because in the 40s and 50s Congress rejected the fully-funded model of social security. Just because you paid in doesn't mean anything will remain to take out.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    In addition to a moral one, I’m invoking a mathematical and practical argument, in that you earn credits by contributing to social security and your payments are scaled by those credits.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

selimthegrim 6y ago

Why so?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
germinalphrase 6y ago
The young have little/no independent earning capacity. The investment we put in the young has a much longer time to accrue positive personal, social and economic benefits. Positive interventions in youth poverty and social stability reduce lifelong skill and mental health deficits that promote adult health, wellness and independence.

an_opabinia 6y ago

I think you flipped the numbers my dude. The federal government spent "about $615 billion—on transfer payments and services for people age 65 or older" in 2000, and "Federal spending on children in 2000 will total about $148 billion, or $175 billion if payments to the children’s parents are included"

germinalphrase 6y ago
Indeed, I did. Edited to avoid arguing against my own position.

tachyonbeam 6y ago

I'm assuming you mean the US spends 33% as much on those under 18 as it does on those over 65 (otherwise your comment about voting makes no sense)? If so, it seem sensible for the government to spend more on the elderly, simply because they cost most and there is nobody else to pay for it. People under 18 typically have one or two parents to care for them. Older people don't have parents and don't necessarily have family to pay for their housing, food, etc. Then you also have to factor in that healthcare costs for the elderly are necessarily more expensive. Not saying kids don't deserve to be well-cared for. I was a welfare kid and I'm glad there were welfare programs. Just saying I think we'll all be glad we can also get some help when we're over 65, especially if we can't count on our family (I have no siblings and may not have children).

sillyconesally 6y ago
There is net negative value in keeping people alive in their retirement age. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 Bill is right. Fortunately, Covid mostly effects the elderly and is helping to correct this situation without uncomfortable "death panels". The other positive is that this will get everyone on board with a global digital identity registry, which will help with everything from climate change mitigation to solving global inequality.
Cederfjard 6y ago
I feel like the comment about voting makes perfect sense? They’re saying that children don’t vote, but old people do, so of course it’s the latter group that gets the most resources - they vote, so they have power over politicians, so politicians cater to them. That said, I think you have a good point with the rest of your comment. Edit: Oh I think I see the confusion now. Did the grandparent change their comment? At any rate, my understanding is that they’re saying that for each dollar the government spends on a child, it’s spending three dollars on a person over 65.

bko 6y ago

US spending more than average OECD country on education in relative terms (GDP) and even more in absolute terms due to higher GDP It's just that high absolute amount of medicare spending throws off the comparison. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_education.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_educat...

Tossito190 6y ago
If you throw money at a black hole, and put the expenditures under the "education" column, that's where it will be counted. You should see the inane &#@* they buy, and the volumes of it they purchase.

kortilla 6y ago

That includes social security. What a stupid comparison. The whole point of social security is a government retirement program based on you putting money into it.

ghaff 6y ago
And another decent chunk is federal civilian and military pensions which is also a benefit earned by working.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote. The most interesting place I've seen this type of argument made it along these lines: - US policy is for housing to appreciate in cost over time - Housing is demanded by young people starting new households, and freed up by old people dying or moving into group housing. - Housing policy is thus a massive ongoing transfer of wealth from incipient households to long-established ones. - This is no way for a non-dysfunctional society to operate

sudosteph 6y ago
That dynamic is actually one of the reasons I think Corey Booker's "baby bonds" idea is so clever. If a child enters adulthood with some amount that has grown in a way that matches up with the economic growth at large, then maybe they won't be locked out of housing ownership.
- ZoomerCretin 6y ago
  There is not enough housing. The solution to rising prices isn't giving people more money to further bid up the price, but to increase the supply of housing which would lower (or at the very least, slow the growth of) housing prices.
  - dan-robertson 6y ago
    Rising house prices are not a technical problem. Having house prices fall is a very big political problem.

dillondoyle 6y ago

I LOVE that West Wing episode. A group of kids get shuffled around the white house, not important, ignored. The leader of his school group gets to ask a question to President Bartlet after impressing a staffer. "Do you think the budget deficit is especially unfair to younger Americans?" -> " a follow up, do you think we'd have such a large deficit if children were allowed to vote?" Such a good use of debate. I think it's worth debating whether to give teens the right to vote. In my mind at least to 13 and up - but it's capricious / hard to draw the line or come up with 'tests' that aren't flat out repeating our disgusting past treatment of Black Americans. The West Wing episode [clip below] spells out some of the argument: I miss the West Wing universe. Would be awesome to see a reboot optimistic show about getting things accomplished, showing a vision for how it's possible to tackle climate change and our other ailments. But move the show past today's progress (it does not treat women well/give them voice, stance on gay marriage etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A

mjevans 6y ago
An A or B in highschool level Social Studies (how your government works) sounds like a good baseline; but that course would have to be moved down to middle-school.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  That was my first thought but there are so many potential pitfalls & problems. What about learning disabled, disadvantaged, just having no access or poor school/lack of opportunity etc. And what if you fail!? we can't deny the right to vote because you can't pass a test. That's what we did to black Americans. though to be honest I'm the type that judge people who don't vote. I get mad when people say 'but it doesn't do anything' but they don't vote!!! I think it should be mandatory it's the least you can do for our country. You don't have to vote for anyone can always write sponge bob or black it out as an F you to the system. Or better yet, work to elect people & pass measures that change the system!
  - dan-robertson 6y ago

sokoloff 6y ago

The overwhelming majority of that spending is social security and other retirement programs which are earned (and often paid-for) benefits from a lifetime of work. The next largest (by far) category is Medicare which was largely, but not entirely, paid for by a lifetime of work. Take just the retirement program figures out and the figures are much closer to what you prefer. Take out the half of Medicare that was paid for by seniors and it’s even closer.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
And by "earned" you're evoking a moral argument, not a financial or legal one, because in the 40s and 50s Congress rejected the fully-funded model of social security. Just because you paid in doesn't mean anything will remain to take out.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  In addition to a moral one, I’m invoking a mathematical and practical argument, in that you earn credits by contributing to social security and your payments are scaled by those credits.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]