Intergenerational transfers of funds

Ron Beasley at Middle Earth makes a good point about the meme, repeated by Robert Samuelson in WaPo today, about the federal government being a conduit for an intergenerational transfer of money from younger citizens to older ones:

Our national government is increasingly a transfer mechanism from younger workers (i.e. taxpayers) to older retirees. In fiscal 2004 Social Security ($488 billion), Medicare ($300 billion) and Medicaid ($176 billion) represented 42 percent of federal outlays. Excluding spending that doesn't go to the elderly, the Congressional Budget Office crudely estimates that these programs pay an average of almost $17,800 to each American 65 and over. By 2030 the number of elderly is projected to double; the costs will skyrocket.

Beasley notes that while this may be true, LOCAL governments increasingly involve transfering funds from older citizens to younger ones. For example, I pay a state income tax and over $6000/year in property taxes (a number that will go up significantly next year when my town undergoes a revaluation). A large portion of those property taxes go to schools, which I don't use and never will, since I do not have, and will not be having, children. Another goodly chunk goes to youth recreation -- most recently a new clubhouse for the youth sports ballfield. Another chunk goes as a partial subsidy for the town swim club, which charges the same membership fee for a couple as for a family of twelve. Another piece goes to pay for our semi-monthly recycling pickup (which families produce more of). And a huge chunk goes to our 27-member police force, which serves a town of less than 10,000 people. And a small chunk goes to the senior center, yes.



But older people use more ambulance service, right? Yes, but our ambulance is volunteer, as is our fire department. And we pay for trash hauling.



Suburban towns like mine are run primarily for young families. They offer a good quality of life, even for those of us without children. But those of us without are paying for an awful lot of good stuff for other people's families and children. I don't mind paying for this stuff, because it's an investment in the town's ability to thrive. It's what's called a community.



But then, like Ron, I don't want to hear that older people are some kind of freeloaders on the system, draining it of vitality and funds that young people could put towards better use buying more gameboys. If that's how people feel, then let them put their money where their mouths are and advocate mandatory euthanasia over a certain age. Is that shocking? Well, it's the logical extension of the perception that older people do nothing but drain a society, right?



No, I'm not advocating euthanasia, just using it to illustrate a point about the FACT that we are all part of a local and a national community, whether we like it or not.