FREE NEWSLETTER
Social media is loaded with videos, posts and memes with a common theme- seniors deserve to pay little or no taxes and they deserve higher Social Security and Medicare benefits. Neither are generous enough for retirees they say. And then there is the standard living on a “fixed income”rhetoric- which virtually nobody does.
Many of the posts claim that Social Security is not enough to pay the bills and does not keep up with inflation.
I am not opposed to assisting anyone in need regardless of age, but to lump seniors in a group deserving more simply because they were fortunate to attain age 65 is wrong IMO.
As you may imagine, my comments on these posts – you had forty years to prepare, why is inflation unexpected and Social Security was never intended as sole retirement income – are not very popular.
Most disturbing to me is the selfishness displayed by this point of view. Both SS and Medicare trusts are headed toward insolvency, national deficits are still with us, local education must be supported and the financial burden for “more” creates a greater burden on younger generations. That’s not fair.
Jonathan Clements was known for clear, practical, evidence-based financial writing that emphasized low costs, broad diversification, disciplined asset allocation, and long-term patience. He devoted as much attention to investor behavior as to investment selection, cautioning against overconfidence, market timing, and emotionally driven decisions. In his later work at HumbleDollar, his voice grew more reflective, reminding readers that the aim is not simply to maximize wealth, but to use money wisely in building a thoughtful and balanced life.
Dear Mr. Quinn,
Please consider shaping your submissions in a style more in keeping with Jonathan’s — clear, disciplined, evidence-grounded, and mindful of the larger purpose money serves.
You don’t see any of that in what I write. Not clear, no evidence, no large view of money and its purpose? None of that? One thing is certain then. I have failed.
I’m sorry, but this reads more like a rant than a constructive argument. It centers on something none of us can control, which makes it difficult to see the practical value.
The question of who “deserves” more public support is complicated. But the data show that K–12 education and seniors have followed very different financial paths over the past two decades.
Some argue that seniors failed to prepare adequately for retirement. But even those who saved diligently are losing ground. Social Security is indexed only to general inflation (CPI). Meanwhile, the specific expenses seniors face—especially healthcare and long-term care—often rise much faster than the overall inflation rate. So even with cost-of-living adjustments, purchasing power can erode in practice.
Regarding the need to support local education, K–12 education has seen a substantial real increase in funding. Nationally, inflation-adjusted per-student spending rose from roughly $15,000 in 2002 to more than $20,000 in 2024—a real increase of about 36% above inflation. In other words, education funding has grown meaningfully in real terms, while Social Security benefits have seen essentially zero real growth.
That national average, however, masks enormous regional variation. In New Jersey, for example, inflation-adjusted per-student spending rose from about $21,000 to more than $30,000. In Idaho, by contrast, it barely increased, moving from roughly $11,000 to $12,000. Broad calls for “more spending” on K–12 education often overlook these disparities.
In many states, education funding has already grown substantially relative to support for seniors.
None of this makes the budget math simple. Social Security’s long-term shortfall will likely be addressed either through reduced future benefits or higher taxes. Current seniors are likely to be largely protected, or “grandfathered,” meaning the adjustments would primarily affect younger workers and future retirees. But large increases in teacher pensions also fall on younger taxpayers, so that is to be considered as well.
How do we allocate limited resources? And who ultimately bears the cost of policy decisions?