FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
I noticed a book excerpt in the Harvard Gazette yesterday (5 Aug 2026) that goes into some depth on a topic that is raised here on HD with some frequency, notably by R. D. Quinn, most recently with regard to the Social Security issue. The book in question is:
“Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth ― and What to Do About It” by Samuel Moyn, J.D. ’01, and published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
The argument is much more broad based than SS alone and provides much reasoned food for thought. Here is an excerpt from the longer posted excerpt:
“If modern gerontocracy functions through a new political environment, it
follows that a new range of solutions is required. Age limits for political office
are a must. Other fixes range from amplifying the political voice of younger
voters and disrupting the stranglehold of the old people’s lobby on our
politics to policies that facilitate intergenerational wealth transfer. The
schemes I offer seek to advance “intergenerational equity.” But unlike the
most vocal partisans of the cause, I don’t oppose the American entitlement
state for seniors. Such voices insist that an end or reduction of perquisites
like Social Security must occur in the name of fairness. The truth is the
opposite: only an expansion of our generosity, including the promise of long-
term care, can overcome the iron grip of old people on power.”
Please note that I post this not to defend any of the author’s particular proposals but only to provide access to reasoned argument on a topic frequently broached on this site. It does seem to me that he has identified and described well the major impasse to progress on the central issue of our common national finances.
I’ll not render an opinion of a book that I have not read, but several age impaired presidents and numerous lawmakers are a fine argument for age limits. Otherwise, like Mark and David write below, it’s no surprise that based on wealth and numbers, we boomers remain a powerful voting bloc.
It is not surprising that a large cohort of Americans, the Baby Boomers, have arranged the political landscape to further their interests through the ballot box. It’s not a bug but a feature of a democratic society.
From ChatGPT…
“Gerontocracy in America by Samuel Moyn argues that the United States has developed a deeply entrenched system where the oldest generations control the majority of political and economic power, creating significant inequality for younger people. To combat this, Moyn proposes “intergenerational equity” through reforms such as age limits, campaign finance changes, and encouraging a “socialist way of aging” to encourage older leaders to cede power. Learn more about the arguments and proposed solutions at Macmillan Publishers.
Core Arguments:
Proposed Solutions
Interestingly, this 54-year-old author berating today’s seniors benefited from a Harvard and Yale education… most likely funded by his “Boomer Parents.”
Also, based on his fields of study and education, stereotypically he is most likely a liberal Democrat politically, so I am not surprised that his solutions sound like they were written by AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Mamdani.
But…that’s just my opinion.
All the core arguments are what the status has been for as long as I have been alive.
Regarding wealth: Who generally is going to have a higher net worth a 65 year old who has been saving and investing for 40+ years, or a 40 you who has been doing the same for merely 15 years?
WARNING: The following is politically incorrect rant here:
More whining from the younger generation.
Recommendation:
Stop whining. Buckle your chinstrap put your head down and get to work. You’re not entitled to anything in life, and most people can’t have anything you want, especially if your in your 30s and 40s.
Look closely at what true needs are vs wants. Stop spending money you don’t have on wants, and start saving more.
Thanks for sharing this, Chris. I found Moyn’s notion that “age limits for political office are a must” ageist, and his book’s loaded, buzzword-laden title polarizing. His sprawling narrative seems to conflate a demographic anomaly (the baby boom) and long-lamented political challenges such as special interest money and the incumbency effect, among other factors. Given that, his prescribed remedies miss the root causes and aim for a more convenient target: the aged. At age 54, he might consider what his ideas mean for his own cohort: Generation X. As a considerably smaller generation, we already lack much influence. Under Moyn’s proposals, Generation X—and future generations—might have even less of a voice upon reaching our “golden years.”
Part of the solution isn’t stripping away benefits from seniors—it’s making it easier for them to share their wealth while they’re still around. And I mean seniors at all income levels. You don’t need to give $500K or more to a younger person to make a difference in their life.
If we actually want intergenerational equity, one clear path is fixing the tax code’s hoarding incentive. Right now, the ‘step-up in basis’ rule means if older folks give assets to their kids while alive, those assets carry a heavy future capital gains tax bill. But if they hold them until they die? Poof—the capital gains taxes vanish entirely. The tax code literally penalizes passing wealth down early, rewards hoarding it until death, and undermines intergenerational equity.
Largely the same in UK. It’s not that the elderly dominate politics here in the same way as the US seems to like electing geriatrics but more that old folks vote so no party wants to risk pissing them off too much.
At least recent changes in inheritance tax rules (which kicks in at a much lower band than the US anyway) which prevent DC pension pots (401k equivalent) being used as an IHT avoidance vehicle should encourage the seriously wealthy to gift before their demise as heirs could easily be facing a double whammy of an effective 64% tax rate on anything they draw from an inherited pension.
About 35% of all federal spending goes to seniors. We all know the state of national debt, current deficits and that costs us $1 trillion annually in interest payments.
And yet social media is inundated with posts allegedly from seniors claiming how adequate SS and its COLAs are and that seniors need to be treated better, they can’t pay the bills.
SS is neither going to remain solvent or be sustainable as it is today. At the same time some politicians are seeking increased benefits. One wants another $200 a month tax free immediately and another to increase future benefits by $2400.
There is something seriously wrong with this picture. One demographic in the population simply can’t take disproportionately from the others for long without adverse consequences.
We had 40 plus years to prepare for old age consistent with our life long income. Young people must deal with their current needs and saving for their futures.