SAD DAY FOR THE TAXPAYER

[Stephanie]

I couldn't agree more Bill & Marshall!

[rainstorm]

Increasingly the elderly are rich, in large part because they don't have to pay for things that the working population has to pay for, such as health care.

According to a recent Census Bureau report, those age 65 to 69 have the highest median net worth of any age group: $106,408 in 1995 (see figure).

By contrast, those under age 35 had a net worth of just $7,428, and those between the ages of 35 and 44 had a net worth of only $31,691.
A prime source of the elderly's growing wealth is that many own their homes free and clear. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 65.4 percent of elderly homeowners in 1997 had no mortgage. Therefore, they had no mortgage payment and paid no rent. Yet many still have substantial incomes from pensions and investments, as well as Social Security.

According to a new study from the CBO, the average after-tax income of elderly households is just 10 percent less than that of the nonelderly: $44,000 for the former and $48,500 for the latter.

When one takes into account Medicare and the value of assets, it turns out that the elderly as a group are 24 percent better off than the nonelderly, according to a study by economists Stephen Crystal and Dennis Shea, both of Rutgers University.

They further estimate that the elderly are 83 percent better off than families with small children.
These conclusions are not disputed by advocates for the elderly. A new AARP report, "Beyond 50," shows that the elderly as a whole have never been wealthier or healthier.

Nevertheless, the view persists in many circles that the elderly are overwhelmingly poor and in ill health. That is what justifies the enactment of ever more give-away programs for them by Congress. Unfortunately, it will continue until those who are taxed to pay the bills finally demand fairness and start voting in larger numbers to get it.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow

[mf_dolphin]

A prime source of the elderly's growing wealth is that many own their homes free and clear.

How can you spend the net worth of your home and just how long do you think that 100,000 goes towards paying the bills when many have monthly prescription costs that range in the 100's of dollars?
You can take statistics out of context and explain any point to want to make.

[rainstorm]

"These conclusions are not disputed by advocates for the elderly. A new AARP report, "Beyond 50," shows that the elderly as a whole have never been wealthier or healthier. "

i thought they were all eating cat food?

[mf_dolphin]

If you're talking about 'wealth" as total net worth then of course they won't disagree. But can you spend your net worth for food and meds? How long do you think 100K goes? Answer the questions please!

[streetsoldier]

Helen, step into MY world...where three people have the only meal of the day, ONE can of tuna and the last few slices of bread split between them, and the father says "I'm not really hungry" so that his wife and son will at least have THAT much.

Pardon me, but...Helen, you are beginning to (you know).

[rainstorm]

sorry soldier, but the 20-30 age group is worse off than seniors. should everything be free for them as well?


A final implication is that AARP has played its cards well over the last week. It has wedged itself effectively between the parties in a way that will make it sought after by both sides. The result will be a more powerful voice for seniors in Washington. This will create an opening for AARP to expand dramatically its already unrivaled citizens network.

[azsnowman]

Helen.....once again, I truly believe it would be to YOUR benefit if you volunteered your time at a homeless shelter, senior center, a commodities distribution center and took notes, compile your "OWN" statistics and not, as it's been said NUMEROUS times already, use SOMEONE ELSES stats, ESPECIALLY "FOX" news! YES......the 20-40 year olds ARE, by "their" statistics, in worse shape BUT....."they" take "their" statistics from the WELFARE, FOOD STAMP rolls.......believe me, I've SEEN more HEALTHY 20-40 year old in the WELFARE line because "THEY" CHOOSE to BE THERE....because they think the WORLD OWES THEM A LIVING!

Dennis

[chadtm80]

sorry soldier, but the 20-30 age group is worse off than seniors. should everything be free for them as well?


A final implication is that AARP has played its cards well over the last week. It has wedged itself effectively between the parties in a way that will make it sought after by both sides. The result will be a more powerful voice for seniors in Washington. This will create an opening for AARP to expand dramatically its already unrivaled citizens network.

Still have not answered marshalls question..

[azsnowman]

Ya know Helen, ONE of these days, your gonna be in the *age group*.....let's hope you have the foresight to make a nice *nest egg* for yourself!

And yes...what ABOUT Marshalls question, "The world wants to know!" "LOL!"

Dennis

[mf_dolphin]

HMMMMMM - Lets see why the 20-30 yr olds might have the lower income and net worth:

1. College bills
2. Just starting a family
3. Buying a new home
4. In debt up to their eyeballs for all of the above plus wanting all the toys
5. Haven't worked long enough to save anything yet

Just to name a few...

Since net worth is the total of your assetts - your debts, BIG SURPRISE!!!!!

[Stephanie]

A prime source of the elderly's growing wealth is that many own their homes free and clear.

To expand on Marshall's question, are the senior citizens supposed to sell their homes in order to pay for their medical bills? Where are they supposed to live then and as Marshall asked, how long do you think that the money would last?

[GalvestonDuck]

I've SEEN more HEALTHY 20-40 year old in the WELFARE line because "THEY" CHOOSE to BE THERE....because they think the WORLD OWES THEM A LIVING!

Agreed!

[Lindaloo]

Helen, still waiting for you to answer Marshall's question.

[mf_dolphin]

How about some of these figures...

13.4 Million Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries will be Helped by the Medicare Rx Bill in 2006


Millions of lower-income beneficiaries will be eligible for financial assistance that significantly lowers their drug costs. Here is an overview of the effect the bill will have on different levels of low income beneficiaries.

Beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and have an annual income less than $9,600 (individuals) or $13,000 (couples)

Impact: 4.4 million beneficiaries

No monthly premium
No annual deductible
No gap in coverage ("donut hole")
$1 copay for generic prescription drugs
$3 copay for brand-name prescription drugs
No copay for beneficiaries in nursing homes
No copay if the beneficiary reaches the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
Beneficiaries who have an annual income less than $13,000 (individuals) or $17,600 (couples) AND assets below $6,000 (individuals) or $9,000 (couples)

Impact: 6.9 million beneficiaries

No monthly premium
No annual deductible
No gap in coverage ("donut hole")
$2 copay for generic prescription drugs
$5 copay for brand-name prescription drugs
No copay if the beneficiary reaches the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
Beneficiaries who have an annual income less than $13,000 (individuals) or $17,600 (couples) AND assets below $10,000 (individuals) or $20,000 (couples)

Impact: 0.7 million beneficiaries

No monthly premium
$50 annual deductible
No gap in coverage ("donut hole")
15% coinsurance (i.e., beneficiary pays 15% of the cost of the drug)
$2 copay for generic drugs over the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
$5 copay for brand-name prescription drugs over the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
Beneficiaries who have an annual income between $13,000 - $14,400 (individuals) or $17,600 - $19,500 (couples) AND assets below $10,000

Impact: 1.4 million beneficiaries

Sliding-scale premium, based on income
$50 annual deductible
No gap in coverage ("donut hole")
15% coinsurance (i.e., beneficiary pays 15% of the cost of the drug)
$2 copay for generic drugs over the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
$5 copay for brand-name prescription drugs over the catastrophic limit of $3600 on out-of-pocket spending
Notes

Number of beneficiaries estimated by Congressional Budget Office.
Amounts represent 2006 figures, which will be indexed for subsequent years.
The asset test includes liquid assets (like savings accounts) and excludes: home (primary residence); car of any value if needed for work, medical treatment or problem, modified for a disabled person, or necessary because of climate, terrain, distance or similar factors; $4,500 of the car's market value if none of these factors applies; burial plot plus $1500 in burial funds (each for individual and spouse); and $1500 in life insurance.
2006 estimated 100% of the Federal Poverty Level is $9,600 for individuals and $13,000 for couples; 135% of the Federal Poverty Level is $13,000 for individuals and $17,500 for couples; and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level is $14,400 for individuals and $19,500.
While the law specifies that individuals with low incomes would have no copays over the catastrophic limit, many may never spend $3,600 out-of-pocket to reach that limit because the copays are so minimal.
For beneficiaries in states with generous Medicaid programs, the copays under this legislation may be higher than they currently pay.

[coriolis]

Of course younger people will be less well off. They're just out of school, just starting their careers, some of them still working at McDonalds, living at home rent free, etc etc. Some of them unemployed, new parents, married or not.

Hey, my parents changed my diapers, fed me, clothed me, smacked my butt when I needed it, and helped put me through college!. And even now they are very generous at christmas and holidays, they helped us buy a car, etc. So there's some cash flow still trickling down! Everyone knows that grandparents are often generous, and what about the "free" babysitting. That's a "subsidy" to the young people. We should tax that!

I don't want to hear anymore about "greedy" old people!

[rainstorm]

If you're talking about 'wealth" as total net worth then of course they won't disagree. But can you spend your net worth for food and meds? How long do you think 100K goes? Answer the questions please!

20-30 yr olds need food and medicine too

[rainstorm]

and, they are far wealthier than 20-30 yr olds. the sad thing is if people could keep their own money form the years of 20-50, they would be retiring at 50 and living the good life.

[rainstorm]

it seems like the only answer is to raise taxes and the retirement age, in the hopes seniors will die before they can collect anything, to keep the system solvent

[GalvestonDuck]

and, they are far wealthier than 20-30 yr olds. the sad thing is if people could keep their own money form the years of 20-50, they would be retiring at 50 and living the good life.

And I believe that was Marshall's point in asking you about wealth. Senior citizens may statistically seem wealthier because their net worth includes their homes. But as far as having expendable cash with which to buy food and prescriptions, where do you suppose that will come from? The value of the home does not do anything for the balance of the checkbook.

And of course, they don't "keep" their money. It is going into payments for housing costs, student loans, and so forth.