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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (654)	6/11/2005 10:44:01 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541513

why not let legally competent people squander their money and end up in poverty? When I worked with the elderly and disabled, I had this sweet old man, Walter, who had nothing but a small SSI check. He was in terrible shape, and he would cry pitifully about the state of his life. I felt terribly sorry for him and wanted to help him. No one should have to live like that. I learned over the months that his life had been filled with drinking, domestic violence, failure to support his children, and as much government assistance as he could obtain. He had been a horrible man who did nothing positive in his life, and now he was a decrepit old sad man with nothing. But people respond to the present-- and no one is going to let the poor old Walters pay the price for their past behaviors. And people always have excuses- someone had large medical bills or they had to raise their daughter's illegitimate child. Walter's was that his alcohol addiction was a medical problem so he couldn't help it. (thank you, health services, for telling him that). Did you see the story about the woman in Britain receiving the equivalent of 60K a year and now demanding better housing because her three daughters had illegitimate children and they needed more space? And some councilman says, "These people should not have to live in poverty." In our unwillingness to make any decision that might hint at moral judgment and a reluctance to allow some to have less than others, we have gotten confused about personal responsibility and consequences. So when we are confronted with those legally competent people who squandered their money, the response will be to pick them up and take care of them. We aren't exactly into Tough Love in America.

To: Lane3 who wrote (654)	6/11/2005 10:52:14 AM
From: richardred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541513

Maybe mandatory classes in money management, and investments in public & private schools. You have to start them down an early path.

To: Lane3 who wrote (654)	6/12/2005 12:15:39 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541513

"Why not just collect the money via payroll taxes and they provide a lump sum at retirement and let the folks in the annuity biz offer various choices for payouts?" Because most people will blow it. "I did not intend to give them the option to do that. The annuity would be mandatory." If you prefer to allow the private sector to provide the annuity services, it would be fine with me. Many politicians would never stand for that. It would prevent them from tinkering, and using the benefit as a political reward for votes. "But leaving that aside, why not let legally competent people squander their money and end up in poverty?" Our society is not inclined to allow people to exist in abject poverty. We feel sorry for everyone in need. Americans are the most generous people in the history of the planet. We would probably not sit by and allow these people to suffer as they may deserve to suffer. In a word, compassion.