Faramond -Faramond wrote:I don't think this can really be about saving money and income distribution in the end.
The ratio of unproductive citizens to productive workers gets too high, then something bad will happen. I know little about economics ... I'm just going on common sense here. If productive labor became scarce, wouldn't inflation go way up? If too many people are trying to live off of savings and investments and things won't the value of such things go way down?
The problem now, I guess, is paying off all this interest from the high standard of living for unproductive workers in order to keep inflation from going through the roof soon. I'm not making any judgement here, or saying what anyone deserves.
The issues are not so much with unproductive citizens ( I take offense at unproductive workers
) but the way at least here in America we have so totally skewed the major economic advantages to those already in the best positions to withstand economic adversity - the wealthiest citizens and corporations. We have had it drummed into our heads that we must protect business and investing at the expense of taking care of our truly needy, and by NO means here am I talking about the elderly, one of the most organized and vehemently outspoken of all political forces now in play in American politics.People start spouting rubbish about flat taxes and universal sales taxes, begrudge anything that goes to needs based services such as Medicaid or other forms of assistance, and fail to realize that these programs themselves count for very little of the federal budget. Most of them have so many strings attached and the amounts of benefit that the individuals actually receive would leave you shocked about how harsh such programs are. The adminstrative costs eat up far more of the actual dollars than you would ever believe.
But, then we have politicos in office that want to keep pushing further and further tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy, with the weak argument that these people will then contribute their largesse to private charitable causes. Like art museums, college endowments, hospital wings named after their grandmother, or memorial chapels at the family church. If they give at all in a relative proportion to their wealth. By and large, such charitable giving is made with very specific benefits in mind, and they are not normally done without other benefits to the donor being recieved in kind.
Eborr's observations are about as valid here as well as in the UK. A very small percentage of our population controls a vast majority of the wealth. Guess how many of these folks have kin or close friends in elected offices?
Face it, the average American household is bringing in a median income of $44,300 US, based on 2004 figures. Since that figure includes all taxpayers both single and married, children or not, working or retired, it is hard to say how that translates down per capita. But, 70% of the personal income taxes are raised by the people in the middle classes. These people are the ones who have hundreds of dollars at most in dividend or interest income, their major net worth is probably tied up in their homes and maybe their retirement accounts, and they basically funnel everything else through a series of credit cards and other forms of financing if they can. In the meantime, true poverty continues to grow, and the wealthy only get wealthier.
In any case, I would propose doing away with Medicare and Medicaid entirely, and instead putting into place a national healthcare insurance program, which would be an optional program for those covered by other private insurers, but would be far more equitable in premiums than the hodgepodge system that America has in place now. And, we need to get harsher. Some things just should not be covered by insurance or Medicare after a certain age. We are not destined to be designed to live forever, and we need to wake up to it. We also need to foster incentives to care for our elderly within their own families when possible. I am not saying working women should quit their jobs and become caregivers. I am saying that incentives should be out there to offer that option. The care would most likely be better than what they receive in the MA funded institutions.
(Maria, I agree with you there - those places just, for lack of a better word, suck. I would rather be dead than ever end up in such a place.)
As vison noted, the piper needs to be paid. It should be paid equitably - with those who are most able to do so doing the paying. Why do we need tax free wealth transfer in so many cases? I can understand that smaller estates should qualify for such things, but there are so many major loopholes in the laws that allow for the largest of estates to get by with paying a mere fraction in tax that it could make most of you shake your heads in amazement. I know, I did this for many many years.
Sadly, as long as the wealthy are also our highest and most influential politicians, nothing is going to change. Their motto - preserve the status quo and hand it off to the future whenever possible.
Part of why we are going to take a cool vacation this year is because of all the money my oldest daughter has saved us in scholarships- just in the first year alone. 
$40,000 for one year of tuition, room and board is not quite a median household income in America.
.