ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


I don't get it. David's "problems" with means-testing are: high marginal tax rates through "phase out," obscurity of the concept of "means," and unfairness. I don't see that any of these apply to bumping up age cut-offs. (Maybe unfairness, but that's a slippery concept at best. It is usually judged synchronically--it isn't usually considered unfair that we are richer and longer-lived than our ancestors--so it wouldn't be considered unfair that 65-year-olds used to be eligible for Medicare but now they aren't.)
Likewise with Philo. How might a higher cutoff cause higher marginal tax rates? Do I get to accelerate my aging process by sheer force of will?
Higher age cut-offs for Medicare and the like are a regressive benefit cut, across the board.
That is, who do they hurt most? The people most in need, who will most rely on govt assistance. They suffer a lot more, take a much larger hit as a percentage of real income, than the boomers who are going to use their entitlements to subsidize the cost of sailing off on their yachts.
Means testing, to the contrary, takes benefits only out of the pockets of the latter.
That's why although a delayed benefit age seems reasonable, fair and good in theory from a distance, it ain't so easy to get past the progressive champions of Medicare et al in practice.
Of course, they don't like means testing either, but the day will come...
The people most most in need get other government assistance, like Medicaid.
Isn't the idea of SoSec that it is available for a retirement fund? As in ... for non-workers? People are living longer and healthier. So, um, maybe they could work until 70. (As has been pointed out, I'm sure, SoSec originally kicked in, like, 2 years after the average age of death. That's the equivalent of 86 nowadays.) An age requirement doesn't hurt anyone who works because they wouldn't receive benefits anyway, no matter how needy. Means testing does take something away from people who (ignorantly, but whatever) paid into the system expecting a return.
Also, means testing basically admits that SoSec is nothing but a generational welfare system, which is unpopular. So there's that.
I don't care. It'll go bust before my dad retires, anyway.