• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MMT'rs Are Fighting A War Against Seniors

I responded to your post. If anyone changed the subject, it was you. So I accept your pathetic surrender.



you are delusional. I've never posted anything of the sort.



Talk about changing the subject.

I accept your pathetic surrender.

He really is pathetically comical.

He accuses you of saying something, and when you ask him where you said that he claims you are trying to change the subject. Then, out of nowhere, he starts talking about jobs in blue states which has nothing to with the thread which is about seniors.
 
When will your war on seniors end, after they are dead and buried and only younger people rule the planet?

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

:screwy

(odds are 10 to 1 MR wont understand the reference and how it applies to his pathetic nonsense)
 
It's not "cold-hearted" to actually know what you're talking about.

As noted by MMI, most seniors today have almost no savings. Most of their net worth is in their homes. At 10% interest, a $20,000 savings account yields $2000 per year. While that's better than $20 a year, it's not going to save seniors, and it certainly isn't going to replace Social Security.

Higher inflation is bad for seniors. It erodes the value of what little savings they have, and makes everything cost more.

Higher inflation does not increase the purchasing power of Social Security. It erodes it, until the government makes a cost of living increase to match it. Wishing for massive inflation, so seniors can get more money from Social Security, is ridiculous.

Higher interest rates can be bad for seniors, for several reasons.

• It will take years to inch interest rates up to even 5%, and that's not very high as far as a savings account goes -- especially since around 3% of that gets whacked off by inflation in a typical year.

• The only reason to have very high interest rates (say, 15%) is if inflation is galloping out of control, and the Fed is using high interest rates to cool things down. The last time that happened was when Reagan took office, and it caused a recession.

• Going from 1% to 15% overnight would decimate the economy. The only way that can happen right now is if the Fed sends the overnight rate through the roof, which makes it expensive for banks to borrow, which means the banks won't lend, which means no one gets to borrow, which causes another financial crisis and global recession. Hard to see how that would be good for seniors.

As noted, if you want to give seniors more Social Security, then Congress needs to vote for an increase. But that is going to cause a whole host of issues. The Trust Fund is already going to run out around 2032, so if you want to give seniors more money, you're either going to hasten the demise of the Trust Fund, or you need to raise payroll taxes to pay for it.

What's your preference?

Higher interest rates are good for seniors by supporting the bond and annuity markets, generally more heavily used by the aging and retired. But, as you said, inflation erodes that.

Low rates encourage stock investment, which is good for the young, now, and for the businesses listed on the exchange.
 
Higher interest rates are good for seniors

They're good for some seniors — those with large retirement savings in interest-bearing instruments. That's a fairly small percentage, and it's a population that isn't up against it financially. It's seniors in the lower quintiles, those with little or no wealth other than their home, that we should be most concerned about imo.
 
It's not "cold-hearted" to actually know what you're talking about.

As noted by MMI, most seniors today have almost no savings. Most of their net worth is in their homes.

No matter how you try to spin it, seniors as a demographic have never, ever been more dramatically better off than the younger generations at any point in modern history than they are today. A lot of seniors aren't rich, but more of the country's wealth than ever before is owned by seniors. Yet we keep sending them money in the mail and excusing them from their medical expenses despite both programs being badly funded, as if we're continuing to generalize them as all disadvantaged. As a demographic, in any of our lifetimes they've never been less disadvantaged, and the working age population has never been more disadvantaged.

Higher inflation is bad for seniors. It erodes the value of what little savings they have, and makes everything cost more.

And that, therefore, is how I predict these benefits will be cut (de facto).
 
Back
Top Bottom