Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Won't his plan run into the "demographics" problem zone?
Now, if there was a way to "zap" the 65+ year old group out of existance, without the costly medical aspects; they would no longer pull upon social security; but their input monies would remain in the system for the benefit of others and the younger ones. Medicare and/or a possible doctor shortage would no longer be a problem. Tax revenues would increase in some areas as the taxed assets were passed along to others, as well as the others now having new found wealth which may be spent into the "new economy". There would be a temporary problem in some areas of the art/collectables market place; as yard/garage sales and Ebay listings would over populate some areas, causing extreme low pricing problems. One area in particular which has had hugh price spikes; would be the collectable auto sector. Boomers who have hoarded and collected, having these items come to market (their children don't want this stuff) in large volumes would destory many collectable areas. There are likely many other important areas of benefit, if only a special, aged based "go away" pill could be put in place. I do believe it would work.
65+ is still providing economic activity although the nature is different. The additional medical expenses is driving growth in that industry, employing more young people who spend/invest their paychecks in other areas that the 65+ cohort might not spend. So, it may not be direct and obvious but I would not totally mark 65+ insignificant.
My problem is that while baby boomers have allowed to have the government rack up debt, generation X an Y are asked to make the sacrifices for debt reduction.
Comments
Now, if there was a way to "zap" the 65+ year old group out of existance, without the costly medical aspects; they would no longer pull upon social security; but their input monies would remain in the system for the benefit of others and the younger ones. Medicare and/or a possible doctor shortage would no longer be a problem. Tax revenues would increase in some areas as the taxed assets were passed along to others, as well as the others now having new found wealth which may be spent into the "new economy".
There would be a temporary problem in some areas of the art/collectables market place; as yard/garage sales and Ebay listings would over populate some areas, causing extreme low pricing problems. One area in particular which has had hugh price spikes; would be the collectable auto sector. Boomers who have hoarded and collected, having these items come to market (their children don't want this stuff) in large volumes would destory many collectable areas.
There are likely many other important areas of benefit, if only a special, aged based "go away" pill could be put in place.
I do believe it would work.
Catch
65+ is still providing economic activity although the nature is different. The additional medical expenses is driving growth in that industry, employing more young people who spend/invest their paychecks in other areas that the 65+ cohort might not spend. So, it may not be direct and obvious but I would not totally mark 65+ insignificant.
My problem is that while baby boomers have allowed to have the government rack up debt, generation X an Y are asked to make the sacrifices for debt reduction.