Toronto, August 16, 2026
Old people hoarding money and power
What is financial justice between generations? Do affluent old people have a moral obligation to help the young and poor? Should wealthy elders feel free to spend their money on sybaritic pleasures, to be reckless and self-indulgent, support eccentric and hopeless causes, or just sit and contemplate their rapidly growing capital, while their children and grandchildren skimp and suffer, and the wider community diminishes and becomes impoverished? (See Thomas Piketty’s famous formula “r > g.” When the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth.)
A new book by Yale law professor Samuel Moyn, Gerontocracy in America, has prompted some robust debate about so-called “hoarding” by old people (see the estimable David Runciman’s review of this book in the London Review of Books). Moyn states the obvious: Old people have disproportionate political power and wealth. Their political power comes from greater propensity than the young to vote (generally electing old people in the process). Their wealth resides in assets accumulated over a lifetime—houses, pensions, retirement savings, etc. Power and wealth reinforce each other. Power protects wealth. Wealth enhances power.
To make matters worse, nowadays old people seem to live for ever. In a horrible irony, the more power and wealth you have the longer you live, giving you even more opportunity to hang on to influence and money. The elderly hoard. The young pay the price. This is particularly true for the young of today.
There’s a good explanation for elder hoarding. As Runciman writes in his review of Moyn’s book: “[T]he money – and power – that wealthy older people cling on to is often a product of their unfounded fears for their own futures. Many people who have significant assets die with those assets more or less untouched, even if they told themselves that the money was there for their old age. Financial advisers will often say that the hardest task they face is persuading their elderly clients to spend down their savings.” And so, when the children eventually inherit, they may be on their own last legs. Writes Runciman: “There are too many Prince Charleses left waiting for their inheritance and not enough Prince Harrys spending like there is no tomorrow.”
Last month Moyn was interviewed by Ross Douthat for the New York Times. Douthat suggested to Moyn that elder hoarding is just planning for the future: “[W] hat you call unjust hoarding — or holding on to houses that you should sell or stock portfolios that would benefit your kids — is, one, a rational preparation for a world where, whatever you do in your professional life, you’re going to live longer than anyone has in recorded history. And you need resources for that future. Two, in maintaining those resources, aren’t you actually, in the end, reducing certain burdens on your middle-aged kids? One of the stories of American life, before the 1930s, before Social Security: What happened to old people when they were injured and couldn’t work anymore? Well, they moved in with their kids.”
Moyn largely conceded Douthat’s point: “I will say that I believe very deeply that we’ve created a society in which it is rational to hoard because we will live indefinitely long. We know from the pandemic that the state of care to which we’re entitled at the end of our lives is horrendous. I mean, horrifying. And it is completely understandable that one would stash away everything one could to avoid that fate.”
The central problem is obvious. No-one knows when they will die or what their material needs will be as they approach this final event. We must prepare for the future in ignorance of these facts. If you are truly rich, you can dole out excess cash—and enjoy doing so—before you die. But most people are not truly rich and are well-advised to hang on to what they’ve got. They may need it.
It’s called hoarding.
*****
Readers comment
I’m back from summer holidays. While I was away, I republished two of The Endgame’s popular posts from the past. Here are a few reader comments on those re-postings.
“A Complete Life,” first published in May 2025, was about the decision of Daniel Kahneman, aged 90, to commit suicide on the grounds that his life was complete.
From Sher Singh: “I believe it’s the most intelligent thing to do ... that is, assessing from time to time, once you are in extremis, as to what is best for you (and, to a certain extent, your loved ones). Wallowing in misery is never the best option.”
From Sandra Martin, author of A Good Death: Making the Most of Our Final Choices: “Kahneman made the choice he thought was best for him and he had the means to pay for it by joining a death society in Switzerland which allows cognitively competent foreigners to have an assisted death ‘for non-selfish reasons.’ Should the same choice be available under our public health system? That is a troubling issue in my view.”
The visual artist Lynn Rotin writes: “My aunt, at 95 living alone and facing potential blindness, opted for MAID. She said she had had a good life and was not willing to give up her independence. She’s the last person l would have expected to make this choice. The day of she was calm and wore new pink pyjamas. Her three children were present. I hope to be as brave as she was and to recognize when my time comes.”
From my cousin Vivienne Jacobson: “I am 97 and very interested! I still enjoy life but would love the option of ending it when I choose.”
David Goldbloom comments: “I am an admirer of Kahneman’s writing but am less at ease with his final actions. In forty years of psychiatry, I saw many people who viewed their own deaths as logical decisions in the moment, only to change their minds if they survived their suicide attempts and had successful treatment of underlying depression. The vast majority of them could not afford the death tourism that Switzerland provides to visitors. I hope Canada would not expand MAID to a Track Three option: ‘I’ve had enough of life/J’en ai assez de la vie.’”
From Kate Grace: “I think that he (Kahneman) was within his rights to choose the end of Life that he sought. The problem, as usual, is the misuse of this and other processes of Life/Death once in the hands of the general public. Will there be abuse in the future and forced deaths (murders) in the name of free choice? Of course there will be. If only we could allow others to disagree without assuming that your differing POV means that I must kill you off to protect my own egoistic POV.”
Sarah Kontopoulos writes: “It’s not up to us to decide if he was wrong, as this is a deeply individual decision. The heart of this story is freedom of choice. He died as he had lived, choosing his own path. May his memory be eternal.”
And from Bernadette: “I had a friend in her 80’s, very interesting human being, she published a book, and days before its launch took her own life. She had been amassing pills for quite some time. I saw her in the library passing hello on the stairs, and learned the following week she had taken her own life. What I would have wanted for her would have been professional medical people to make sure she passed with the minimum of suffering. I often think what if she botched it, and since she wasn’t found until after the weekend, we’ll never know what she might have suffered in such a profoundly lonely time. So no, I’d have liked her to have a better death. The Switzerland end of life medics in attendance is what I would have wished for her.”
“Friendship” was first published in January 2024.
Bob Rae: “It was beautiful and perceptive when first written, and is so today, read at dawn’s early light.”
The final word goes to Karen Clarke: “This popped up in my feed just after I said thanks and see you soon to a friend who has spent the past four days helping my husband and I through two medical crises (he had one; I had one). We’ve been friends for 30 years, and we’re women, so we fit the profile. I asked for help. She responded immediately and without condition. I have spent more time in her company these past two days than in the past year. And in the midst of all the stress and anxiety, we enjoyed one another’s company. Our friends are the people who know all our faults and forgive us anyway.”
A few thoughts in response to an interesting piece:
1 First and foremost, we should have spent, or should continue to spend, our resources on our children to ensure that they become self-sufficient and never need handouts later in life. The operative word here is 'need'.
2 We should indeed, as we are aging, hoard reasonably sufficient resources to cover our estimated needs in the years we reasonably expect to live. We should rely on our common sense, not on the investment industry for advice on this ... because in their own best interests, no number of millions is enough.
3 We should retain control of this hoard and not surrender that control until and unless we have to ... and then, and only then, hand over the strings to one we can truly depend on. In my Punjabi tradition, "one who is well fed" is highly recommended.
4 If we've brought up our children well, they'll rise to the occasion if we find ourselves in an unexpected emergency.
5 Keeping all of the above in mind, do get help for some good estate planning.
I'm 78, still mobile more or less, mentally alive, read a lot, and have NHS meds for arthritis (anticipated, both sides of family), and other minor problems (migraine mainly). Occasionally I think of how much time left, but not in terms of anxiety. My daughter lives with me, calls me to order when necessary, and conducts her own life as she wishes. I'm aware that this could be better, however, and so is she. But we don't discuss it as it leads to stress on both sides, although she has not been inclined to live separately from me.
Income has always been sufficient, but more recently the sale of our previous house brought a reasonable lump sum now in a Building Society account. Regular income covers the cost of current private house rent etc, and we have not drawn on the savings. Your comments on money kept untouched in case of need struck home, although it is not a great amount. We have had idle conversations over buying a small house, nearer the countryside, but not seriously. One thing I have always done is regular donations to charities and causes that deserve help, my parents having taken a similar approach when I was growing up. Both I and my daughter volunteer at community centres, assisting or taking part in group activities. My son and his family have similar involvements where they live, including help with disability matters. A lot of local people work in the centres helping, bringing food in, cooking, and giving advice. Trained nurses and advisors come, there are books given that people can borrow, writing and poetry groups, children's activities, walking groups with leaders, and council workers who help with housing problems and questions. I know that I am a lot better off than many of my colleagues there, and we try to take surplus books, clothes, and household things there for both the centre and people who need them. One thing I did anticipate, I am paying for my funeral in advance! Seemed like a sensible move at least, and if I live to 90, I stop paying.......
Thank you for your interesting article, I found it very true, having read a lot of accounts in my lifetime so far! I shall endeavour to make sure I do not keep more than I got in the first place from the house sale.