What retired wealthy cohort? |

What retired wealthy cohort?

Regarding George F. Will’s column “Is economic equality a moral imperative?” : No comment can more accurately reveal the ignorance the D.C. elite has regarding life outside the Washington salons than that one of the facets that fuels America’s inequality is: “First, the entitlement state exists primarily to transfer wealth regressively, from the working age population to the retired elderly who, after a lifetime of accumulation, are the wealthiest age cohort.”

Retired wealthy cohort? Really? Perhaps there is a group that fits this opinion, but if Mr. Will would take a trip to Realityville, he wouldn’t find the majority of retirees frolicking with the money accumulated from their savings, which are still growing at pennies-per-month bank interest, but a majority struggling just to be comfortable and make ends meet.

George also seems to accept Harry G. Frankfurt’s doctrine that the moral imperative is that everyone should have enough. This is a plank of the 1889 Founding Congress of the Second International Workingmen’s Association (the birth of international socialism).

Trouble is, now as then, no one can define how much is enough. Will’s opinion on this, as with many others of his on life outside of Washington, is wrong.

William R. Casey

West Mifflin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.