Essentially requiring states with balanced budgets and surpluses, even, to pay what amounts to foreign aid, by force.

So a system that works is required to support a system that doesn't.

With that in mind it becomes quite apparent why Californians are advocates for redistribution of wealth. Their lifestyles are already dependent on it.

But Cali is a doner state

barely. they receive $0.99 in federal funds for every dollar of federal tax.

<https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/>
`In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, which is below the national average return for states of $1.22 per dollar paid, according to its review of a 2015 New York Comptroller study.`

that's a precarious balance, based largely on the golden goose of the tech sector.

a golden goose that they're doing their damnedest to kill
<https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-Prop-C-homeless-tax-measure-to-raise-300-13369555.php>

My point is that I don't see this "foreign aid" from other states

how do you square giant federal spending with the 10th amendment?

medicare, medicaid, social security, and the whole shebang

I stand 1 percent corrected

The power to tax is how it was justified.

If we end Social Security and Medicare what will that mean for the elderly? The two were created at different times but because the elderly were destitute.

Do what Milton Friedman said: convert all outstanding social security liabilities to federal bonds and end the program.

rip that bandaid off.

everyone gets what they have been promised, but new workers no longer have to pay into the system. they'll only get a bond proportional to what they've paid in.

couple of decades later, all the bonds will have come to term and the whole problem is solved.

The elderly can be cared for by friends and relatives. Failing that, they probably would end up in low-paying positions and low income housing. With their higher than average medical costs, they would most likely die younger.

no real need for that. with the bond conversion idea the elderly still get their money. but young workers are going to have to learn to make significant retirement savings.

If you arent doing that already you're in for a rude surprise

the whole process of weaning society off social security will probably take 30-35 years, but it'll be much less painful.

And what of people who cannot afford living expenses or health care in advanced age?

Then they get help or they die.

charity and family.

Will the electorate accept the elderly dying for lack of money?

Hmm? Probably. Once the electorate is younger.

I think Penn Jillette had a good line here: "If you want to help people, then help them"

I mean I keep hearing that what has to happen to make the country better is that "the old racists need to die off"

if you personally feel that there are elderly people who need financial help, then help them

that's compassion

I do but I can't help everyone

So you would make other people help everyone.

no one is expecting you to

and that's a noble thing. but using the force of government to redistribute wealth is not noble.

And in a world as you described I need to think of my own retirement

Yes. Start saving.

do you not do that already?

I already have a fairly healthy IRA.

Oh, I have

Social security cant possibly cover all living expenses