The "geriatric hordes" have sons and grandsons. If the State doesn't support Granny, it's Father who will have to, which will leave less money for Junior, who has enough free time to go out and loot if necessary. You see where this goes.

If that family was made of civil servants or (god forbid) military personnel, you'll also have a strong feeling of resentment-fuelled rage as a bonus.

But that's how it winds up working anyway: the working-age middle class support the elderly. The only difference is that instead of that support being internal to the family, it's pooled, so that those with parents who are especially expensive to support don't have to pay more, or much more, than others.

There's some value in pooling it like that, I suppose, but let's not kid ourselves. Social Security is a transfer payment system, not a retirement savings program, which is what it was sold to people as.

I don't know the specific "implementation details" of US Social Security; my point was that support for the elderly is necessary in general, otherwise they go back to being a burden for families, lowering their tolerance levels towards accepting the rule of law. If you plan on scaling back a certain program, you better have something else ready to replace it, or you'll feel the pain at the polls or, in the worst case, in the streets.

I agree with that. I'm not suggesting we should just scrap it. The problem I have is with people who argue it shouldn't even be means-tested.

Yeah, when Father and Junior are the ones to throw away and forget Granny in the nursing home, they're the first ones that will come to their rescue.

This is why the elderly come out in droves on election day. They can't trust the young'uns.