如果你这周在社交媒体上花过任何时间，可能就看到一条让我怒火中烧、或许也会让你愤怒的热门新闻：标题是：“突发：根据凯托研究所的数据，89%的美国老年人支持对年轻工作者征收更高税款，以保障当前的社会保障福利。”这条消息被各种不同账号反复转发。实际上，这根本不是什么突发新闻——我找到了凯托研究所发布这项研究的原始资料，发现它早在去年12月就已发表。
If you spent any time on social media this week, you might have seen a trending news item that really boils my blood, and maybe yours: The headline is this: “JUST IN: 89% of American seniors support higher taxes on younger workers to protect current Social Security benefits, per Cato Institute” And that got shared over and over by all sorts of different accounts. In fact, it isn’t breaking news — I tracked down the Cato Institute study that produced this result, and it was published last December.
不过，尽管将这一研究包装成突发新闻的做法存在误导，但我完全理解社交媒体上由此引发的恐慌和愤怒。是的，这确实是一场道德丑闻：婴儿潮一代——这些退休者、美国历史上最富有的世代——为了保住政府发放的福利金，不惜一切代价，甚至愿意提高对年轻、贫困美国人的税负来拯救社会保障制度。凯托研究所指出：“在社会保障改革问题上，出现了显著的代际分歧。53%的30岁以下美国人认为，即使这意味着要削减当前退休者的福利，也应保护年轻工作者免受更高税负的影响。相比之下，89%的65岁及以上老年人则认为，即使需要向年轻工作者征收更高税款，也应保障当前退休者的福利。”你们创造财富，他们拿走。
But aside from the false portrayal of this as breaking news, I totally agree with the freakout and the fury it produced on social media. Yes, it is a moral scandal that the Boomers — retirees, the wealthiest generation in American history — will stop at nothing to protect their welfare payments from the government, and would be happy to raise taxes on younger, poorer Americans in order to save Social Security. From Cato: “A striking generational divide emerges over Social Security reform. A majority (53%) of Americans under age 30 say younger workers should be protected from higher taxes even if doing so requires reducing benefits for current retirees. In sharp contrast, 89% of seniors age 65 and older believe current retirees’ benefits should be protected even if that means higher taxes on younger workers.”You make, they take.
近100年前社会保障制度刚实施时，它确实有必要，能防止那些年事已高、无法工作的人流落街头、死于贫困。但如今的情况已大不相同。现在，美国老年人掌握了社会的大部分财富，并且他们成功操纵了制度来保护自己的优厚待遇。例如，我们之所以面临住房短缺，正是因为他们支持那些阻碍新建房屋的分区法规。事实上，年轻人所需的许多东西——住房、托儿服务、医疗、教育和工作——都因政府监管的阻碍而变得难以获得。
When Social Security was enacted nearly 100 years ago, it was necessary to prevent people who were too old to work from dying of poverty on the streets. But the situation is very different today. Now, it is elder Americans who own most of the wealth in society. And they have been able to rig the system to protect their largesse. We have a housing shortage because they support zoning laws that make it difficult to build new houses, for instance. In fact, so many of the things young people need — housing, child care, medical care, education, jobs — are made less obtainable because government regulation gets in the way.
“婴儿潮一代”支持这项法规，现在他们还想提高我们的税收？这就是代际掠夺。请记住，没有人会愿意给自己加税。事实上，共和党和民主党都在争相让老年人少缴税，包括为他们取消房产税——但对首次购房的你来说却并非如此。值得肯定的是，一些保守派评论员也意识到这种状况荒谬至极。在X平台上，马特·沃尔什写道：“我理解，关于社会保障的讨论是政治毒药。但我并不打算竞选公职，所以我不在乎这一点。为了支付那些净资产高出许多倍的老年美国人的退休金，而大幅削减年轻工薪阶层的收入，还要支撑一个所有人都知道在他们自己退休时很可能已经名存实亡的制度，这在道德上是令人憎恶的，在经济上更是荒谬至极。所有人都知道这一点，但我们却被那些拒绝交出权力的老年政治家，以及那些（显然也有例外）对孙辈将继承的财政和文化未来并不太在意的老年选民所挟持。”
Regulation supported by the Boomers. And now they want to raise our taxes too? It’s generational theft. Keep in mind, no one is going to raise their taxes. Both Republicans and Democrats are actually competing to make the elderly pay less in taxes, including by eliminating property taxes for them — but not for you, first-time homebuyer. And some conservative commentators, to their credit, recognize it as absurd. On X, Matt Walsh writes: “I understand that the social security conversation is political poison. But I’m not running for office so I don’t care about that. Taking huge chunks out of the paychecks of young working Americans in order to pay for the retirements of older Americans who have a net worth several times higher, all to prop up a system that everyone knows likely won’t be there when those younger people are retirement age themselves, is morally abhorrent and economically insane. Everyone knows it, too, but we’re held hostage by elderly politicians who refuse to surrender power, and older voters who, as a group (with exceptions, obviously), simply don’t care all that much about the financial and cultural future their grandchildren will inherit.”
另一方面，如果老年美国人真的决心维持目前的社会保障金发放水平，那就意味着其他人将不得不缴纳更多税款。布鲁金斯学会的研究员杰西卡·里德尔已经做过相关计算。她写道：“要维持全额的社会保障福利，意味着必须将工资税从12.4%提高到近17%。此外，要完全资助医疗补助计划，还需要再增加9个百分点的税收，或者或许要征收25%的增值税。这样一来，那些（通常富裕的）老年人就能继续拿到远超他们已缴金额的钱。”
On the other hand, if older Americans are actually determined to maintain their current Social Security payouts, it’s going to mean a lot more taxes for everyone else. Jessica Reidl, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has done the math. She writes: “Maintaining full Social Security benefits would mean raising the payroll tax from 12.4% to nearly 17%. Also fully funding Medicare would require adding another 9pp, or perhaps adding a 25% VAT. So that (often wealthy) seniors can keep getting back far more than they paid in.”
没错，他们拿到的钱远比缴纳的要多，因为他们的平均寿命比该计划设计时的预期要长得多。这根本不可持续。它正在让我们的国家破产，也注定会让我们的子孙后代陷入困境。
That’s right, they’re getting much more than they paid in, because they live longer on average than was considered normal at the time the program was designed. This is simply unworkable. It’s bankrupting our country and it’s dooming our children and our grandchildren.
我们需要更多人，最好是更多的政治家，站出来大声说“够了”，尽管这在政治上并不受欢迎。将下一代判为契约奴役，这根本就是错误的。罗比·索夫是《国会山报》评论节目《崛起》的联合主持人，也是《理性》杂志的高级编辑。本专栏是他每日评论的编辑版文字记录。
We need more people, hopefully more politicians, to stand up and say enough is enough, even though it’s politically unpopular. It’s simply wrong to sentence the next generation to indentured servitude. Robby Soave is co-host of The Hill’s commentary show “Rising” and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary.