How did our generation get stuck with such a raw deal when it comes to Social Security? I’m not bemoaning the fact that my mother and grandmother get it; I’m sick of the way government handles our money! There wasn’t a whole lot of foresight in the creation of SS.
Is it really wise to let our government take our hard earned money and put it into a fund for the use of generations ahead of us to retire, masked as a ‘due’ for our own retirement, no less?! Did anyone ever think that maybe the birth rate would decline immensely? Did anyone think that maybe people would live longer and longer? How about a bad economy and high unemployment on top of that? Let’s think that through.
The Social Security taxes you now pay go into the Social Security Trust Funds and are used to pay benefits to current beneficiaries. The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law… In 2017 (it) will begin paying more benefits than it collects in taxes and… in 2041, the Trust Funds will be depleted. Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. So, according to the SS Administration, our generation will pay the tax but won’t be able to collect on it when we retire.
Of course, I have heard the argument that this is a simple math problem to be fixed with increasing taxes. When does that line of thinking ever stop?! And how much do you have to raise the taxes to compensate for all of the changes I just mentioned? Let’s learn from history and our mistakes. Quit having the government take things over that are too important to mess with. Do we really want to give the US Government the opportunity to make us relive the Social Security mess with our healthcare?
Will our children be asking us, “Why did you get us into such a healthcare mess we can’t afford, when you knew how Social Security failed?”
By David Moberly
We’ve been discussing fairness, God’s will for finances, and the Biblical approach to monetary policy. I think we’ve done a good job of debunking the idea that God is expressly Socialistic, but can we determine with certainty that He’s all in for Capitalism? Keep in mind that neither of these systems were in play in any era of Biblical Literature, so we can postulate at best. Here’s where the Scripture, “Love the Lord with all of your heart, mind and soul,” comes into play. We have to use our wisdom and experience to apply Biblical principles to modern socioeconomic thought. To conclude the series today, we will discuss the quality of life as it relates to federal fiscal policy, and how fairness is almost never the outcome of redistribution.
I want to start off by reminding the reader that the government does not create revenue.
They create currencies and monetary policy, they take money in the form of taxes (no goods or services are produced in this process), but they absolutely do not create anything tangible. Government’s fiscal purpose is to facilitate major costs incurred that cannot be handled by an individual such as law enforcement, interstate roads, and other large projects that require too much capital for an individual alone.
To claim that fairness dictates that tax dollars should funnel back to the poor misses two obvious facts:
1) The money used for this purpose was taken by another individual that had no choice in the matter.
2) Incentive is given for someone who has created no value to the economy and to society, to remain in the state they are in — unproductive.
These two elements lead to the corruption of a stable, growing economy. Which is really fair: allowing people to keep the money they’ve earned through the creation of goods and services? Or taking that money and giving it to someone else who has not earned income through the creation of goods and services? You may answer that charity demands such behavior! I would argue that charity seeks to give, not take, and never to make better those who are comfortable in failure. So who is being charitable, those who create the goods and services or those who only consume them? The chief aim of charity must be the betterment of the individual and consequently, the benefit of the collective whole — I believe it is a fallacy to call something charity when it misses either of these critical aims.
Most people believe in caring financially for the disabled; most are willing to temporarily support the unemployed or otherwise downtrodden. The problem exists only when programs to facilitate this giving become so large that they are unsustainable except in the very short term. This is the invariable result of any such program being handled on a federal level with less than adequate local oversight. Don’t even get me started on the tyranny of majority that exists in a modern democracy either. When all it takes for more free stuff is half the country plus one to vote for it, what hope does any economy have? Remember that government’s role in monetary policy is only to facilitate tax revenue in a way that is best for both the individual and the commonwealth. If you can answer how two years of unemployment benefits help the commonwealth, I’d love to hear that. If you can explain why almost half of the federal budget is needed to support re-distributive policies, I’m all ears as to how the balance of individual rights vs. rights of the nation as a whole are being met.
The truth is that these policies and programs are crippling to our economy. The truth is that these don’t stimulate growth, they cause capital and investment opportunity to stagnate. The truth is that these are not “doing charity,” only limiting the availability of productive people to create jobs or charity by their own (not mandated) creativity and benevolence. Lastly, if you can explain to me how it’s fair that earned income be allocated (against your will) to support anybody else who cannot support themselves — I’m all ears. Life may not be fair but neither is socialistic monetary policy. Therefore, the fairness argument holds no water!
Giving is good. Generosity is good. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the compulsory taxes we have no choice in, really cause us to be a better people and a better nation. It is well and good to believe that higher taxes help pay for the greater good, but call a spade a spade; forced confiscation of private wealth is only a popular concept to those who live on the “generosity” of others.
David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics. He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”