Social Security...i don't feel secure...
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORMI am going to start here because, well, why not.
Depending on who is in power, the out party will make claims that Social Security will go bankrupt. For historical context, the Republicans made these claims when Clinton was in office. They scoffed when Clinton claimed to have fixed the problem by simply raising the age limit.
Now, the Republicans seem less urgent about fixing it while the Dems claim it will not be solvent. They agree it is in bad shape, but disagree on the severity or the longevity of how long it will last.
The Libertarian view is very simple and clear: it is your money, why not let you keep it.
The social security system will fail. It doesn’t take a math major (I am not one) to see that more people are going to be taking out than are putting in.
Instead of relying on a government agency to protect your future, every American should be allowed to invest in their own financial future.
The facts are simple…the money you could invest, taken from what you would be putting in Social Security, could earn more interest in a secure, low yield mutual fun. And it would be there, and not run the risk of being swiped by the government to pay for war or corn subsidies.
I know some will say “what about those who aren’t smart or responsible to invest their money and have nothing?”
That’s what private charity’s are for. America is a place where you are to succeed or fail on your own ability and ingenuity. If you don’t, then the rest of the country should not be compelled to pay for their misfortune.
There is a larger issue here…as the government controls your money, they can control you.
posted by James Christopher at 8:39 AM
1 Comments:
The problem with the argument that if people aren't responsible enough to save for themselves, it's essentially their problem, is that it's *not* just their problem. When the elderly become homeless, they become a visible problem for me just like any other homeless person. Assuming that my charitable impulses require me to do something to prevent people from descending into poverty in old age and causing all kinds of additional problems, I'd prefer the problem to be addressed in a systematic way over a long period of time (saving some money every year) that to be faced with an insurmountable ad hoc problem that I can't do anything about except on a case by case basis.
Even the Republicans have started to realize that there is a social interest in institutional solutions to some problems--e.g., with people who are homeless due to severe alcoholism. In Nevada for example there was one incurable alcoholic who was costing the state over a million dollars a year to rescue him from the street every week. They would have saved a lot of money just by putting him in housing and paying someone to watch over him.
I personally would rather not deal with the ad hoc problem.
Post a Comment << Home