Why Boomers Should Be Forced to Share Some Wealth

Many thanks to Bruce Bartlett for his civilized and interesting response. One point of clarification: My idea was that the accumulated assets of the Boomers' parents—the so-called "Greatest Generation"—should be tapped to help reduce the debt that the Greatest Generation is running up and passing on to the Boomers and their children. Maybe it's too late for that. Bruce's notion seems to be that Boomers themselves should put the government in their wills. That's not a bad idea either.

Our main disagreement is whether Boomer contributions to reducing the debt should be mandatory (i.e., through taxes) or voluntary. I tend to think that if there is a social need, then society should supply the means to satisfy it. Using government as an instrument has three advantages. First, we as a society can make the decision—through our democratic process—about what we choose to regard as social needs (health care for the poor? Art museums? Science research?) and then pay taxes to fund them. Second, doing it through the government is less undignified for the beneficiaries. If it's a legitimate social need, why should they have to rely on private charity? And third, as I mentioned in the piece, government is a way of saying "I will if you will." No one need feel like a sucker, if everyone's in the game.