Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (682203)	5/13/2005 2:33:28 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Personal Accounts Are the Only Moral Solution to an Immoral System George C. Landrith President Bush has made Social Security reform a top priority. While opponents of his plan insist that the problems facing the system are less severe than the president asserts, no one disputes that Social Security faces inevitable fiscal difficulties. Social Security, which first began as part of the New Deal safety net, works on a “pay as you go” basis. Current workers pay, through payroll taxes, the obligations owed to current retirees. Right now, there is more tax money flowing in than payments going out. Demographic changes, however, will soon tip the scale the other direction. As baby boomers begin retiring, a dwindling workforce will have to support an increasing retired class. In about 13 years, Social Security will run short of funds and begin paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. Spending more than you have is the very definition of financial insolvency and bankruptcy. Those who argue that this crisis will not occur for 42 years, mistakenly pretend that Social Security has cash reserves to call upon. However, there are no reserves – just worthless IOUs. There are essentially two ways to address this inevitable financial crisis. First, government could increase payroll taxes. This method has been used to correct past revenue shortfalls, but is only a temporary fix. Second, the government could simply reduce the benefits, breaching its promise to retirees who worked and paid into the system their whole lives. Alternatively, we could use some combination of tax increases and benefit decreases. In addition to these financial issues, there are serious moral considerations to be considered. The current system tramples the principles of individual freedom upon which America was founded. The current system blatantly takes property (earnings) from some and hands it to others. This arrangement is inherently immoral. How does one justify requiring a single mother to work overtime so that she can afford the payroll taxes taken from her paycheck and given to a retired wealthy CEO? Earnings taken from workers cannot be used by them to generate their own retirement funds or for anything else, and they cannot lay claim to any of the money at a later time. As a result, they are forced to work for the benefit of others. Social Security does not invest the funds, and as a result, retirement accounts cannot grow. The average worker works six weeks just to cover the amount that the government will confiscate and pass out to others. Further, is it morally acceptable to impose on a future generation of workers a social program that is fiscally unsound at a fundamental level? Who among us would force our children and grandchildren to deal with such a train wreck when we have the opportunity to change course now? If we do not reform Social Security, that is exactly what will happen. The next generation will inherit a broken social program that could only be fixed through drastic measures. Each year we wait only increases the ultimate cost to fix the problem. We have the chance to both put Americans’ retirements back in their own hands, and avoid dumping a virtually unmanageable fiscal crisis on our posterity. Through private retirement accounts, workers will be able to own their retirements. Currently, there is no guaranteed right to receive any Social Security payment, and benefits may not be passed to recipients’ families. The “security” of Social Security is thus a fairy tale. Personal accounts, on the other hand, are owned by the individual, increase over time, and may be passed to loved ones. Moreover, personal retirement accounts will alleviate the burden on government (and by implication future workers) to provide for the elderly in retirement. Personal accounts will almost certainly generate greater retirement income than government-managed benefits over the long-term, and the pay-outs cannot be taken away. While there are transition costs accompanying the shift to a system of voluntary personal accounts, the long-term costs of blindly continuing down the current path far exceed this short-term expense. Less long-term reliance on government-provided retirement makes fiscal sense and is a moral imperative. ### Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights. opinioneditorials.com