Posted on 03/28/2005 7:45:10 AM PST by bigsky
Bass boat or Baby? Feminism or family? Another mouth to feed or leather seats in your luxury SUV? For over thirty-five years most Americans have decided that children are a blessing --the kind to be enjoyed in a very small number that does not interfere with the better marketed blessings of ambition, "me time", and competitive consumerism. The "population pyramid" we all learned about in Social Studies class is thus as dead as a restrained Judiciary (or the Dodo, for that matter), replaced by a weakening "population column," as people have fewer and fewer children. This will mean two things.
One is the collapse of Western Civilization. But more importantly for the "Me" generation, the other is that the pyramid scheme of Social Security --which depends upon the taxation of the broad young base of the population pyramid to support its small aging peak-- is now demographically unsustainable. The extra children we were not willing to share our pie with yesterday will not be there to share their pie with us tomorrow. The Social Security system will thus have to be adjusted by either significantly decreasing benefits or else drastically increasing taxes. Period.
Or we could, as President Bush has proposed, augment the questionable pyramid scheme with private investment accounts through which individuals could save for their own retirement using compound interest. Surprisingly though, the idea of owning one's own retirement funds is viewed as a risky scheme by the public; while depending instead upon an un-guaranteed and legally unenforceable government IOU for an amount to be determined later and paid for by future workers that will not be born is somehow viewed as a sure thing. President Bush assured us, however, when the initial shaky poll numbers for the private accounts idea came out, that as people learned more "the numbers will move." They have moved straight down from there, so score one more for W.
Never being one to attempt to improve a situation I can instead exploit for personal gain, I am proud to now share with all of America an exciting new investment opportunity. Today I announce to you, the supporters of Social Security, my personal investment and guaranteed wealth-building retirement system, Socialist Sincerity. This fabulous investment of a lifetime is the only decision you'll ever have to make regarding your financial golden years. It's the private-sector retirement program you've been waiting for -- one that preserves all the salient features of the Social Security system you love, but has no limits on the amount of money you can send into it! You've already decided that Social Security is a better deal than any risky scheme like investing in the future growth of the American Economy through so-called "stocks" and "bonds," so wouldn't you be stupid not to put every penny you have into this wealth-spurting super investment? Now you can! Simply sign up for my Socialist Sincerityprogram and let the wealth come to you! I will now take a few spontaneous questions regarding the "rock-solid" and nearly fully guaranteed Socialist Sincerityprogram.
Excellent questions. Socialist Sincerity is so simple even a Democrat can use it. You simply send to me (under irrevocable legal obligation and threat of imprisonment) a large chunk of your earnings every week for your entire life. Then, when you reach retirement age --which I currently am going to say is "67", but I can change to any number I want later-- I will send you guaranteed monthly payments in an amount I will determine at a future date! This amount will be based on my financial situation at the time and my fickle spending priorities (which could include invading my uppity neighbor's backyard, turning my driveway into an enormous underground highway system so that I don't have to look at it, or building a chain of monuments to the founder of Socialist Sincerity).
You betcha, partner! The US stock market has produced a measly annualized rate of return of 7-8% over the last few generations. Bonds have averaged just 3%! Socialist Sincerity, on the other hand, is aiming for a rate of return which I GUARANTEE is currently estimated (for a 25-year old male) at negative 0.82%! How is this possible, you ask? Simple: contributions to Socialist Sincerity won't be invested in any high falutin' financial instruments. Instead, your contributions will go straight into the impregnable Socialist Sincerity psychic lockbox, which just happens to look a lot like my checking account or "general revenue fund."
Once safely deposited in the psychic lockbox, these funds can then be used to buy all the things I might otherwise have to seek loans to purchase. How does this benefit you? Just think of how much I'll save in interest spending your money at 0.82%, rather than having to acquire loans at market rates! This is exactly the model that works so well for the Federal Government, which spends your Social Security taxes just as fast as you pay them. The national debt is huge. But just think how huge it might be if you weren't wisely subsidizing it with your Social Security payments. Socialist Sincerity can put even more of your money to work for someone else. I've got my eye on an AWD Volvo XC90 V8 SUV with built-in butt warmers in the leather seats. (see "spending priorities", above)
It's wise to think of your loved ones before tragedy strikes. Since I will not pay out any of your contributions to anyone should you die young, you can rest assured that they will not be burdened with the sort of inheritance paperwork that a nasty private account would impose on them.
Oh God, yes! I can safely say that Socialist Sincerity benefits no one more than the already old and entitled feeling. Our investment strategy is based on the teachings of noted early twentieth century economist Carlo "Charles" Ponzi. Do a little research. I think you will find the early investors in his scheme did quite well indeed.
Don't be silly! Just like rock-solid Social Security, Socialist Sincerity is funded by a fixed percentage of its contributors' incomes. If the economy collapses, incomes will probably just go UP, not down. Thus you can rest secure knowing the rock-solid guarantee of programs like Social Security and Socialist Sincerity will be totally immune to the sort of prolonged economic collapse that could reduce the return from a risky, risky, risky private account.
One last question, please.
Like you can trust the US government, my friend. Now if you'll just sign on the dotted line . . .
This guy has the right approach to convincing folks that private accounts are superior to Social Security -- given all of the facts and an unfetered option on which way to go, who would ever choose the latter?
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Sorry for the double Ping
priceless
No matter how you allocate the wealth it boils down to a less productive economy and that spells trouble. The simple fact is that we need more kids. We're making up the deficit right now by bringing in immigrants, but who's to say that those immigrants will feel obligated to support a bunch of elderly Americans without kids of their own when it comes time for us to retire?
I don't follow your reasoning. The big problem with the current system isn't that older folks aren't producing wealth, it's that younger people are being hindered from accumulating wealth because they're taxed to transfer money to older folks.
Also, money in private investment accounts is productive -- it is used to fund economic growth via infrastructure, and when cashed in and spent, also encourages growth, via sales.
Absolutely hilarious article. And so true...
Restructuring social security is like refinancing your debt. It can really help, but the underlying problem is the debt itself. In the case of SS the underlying problem is that we're living longer, using much more healthcare and we're not having enough kids to support us.
Now, there'll be about a full generation's worth of transition, which may be what you're referring to, but once that is complete, the long-term effects are to free younger workers from the burden of having to support the aging class.
Isn't that the bloody truth! The only folks who can afford loads of kids are the folks who our tax dollars subsidise. Sure, wealthy folks can have scores of kids, but few wealthy folks have loads of kids.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
Isn't that the bloody truth! The only folks who can afford loads of kids are the folks who our tax dollars subsidise. Sure, wealthy folks can have scores of kids, but few wealthy folks have loads of kids.
You don't know what you're talking about. I have 9 children and make less than $30,000/year. No, I don't take food stamps, welfare or even sponge off my neighbors to educate my kids. Sure it means no TV time as living cheap takes time and effort, but it's not impossible. Besides, rich people are too busy playing with their toys to raise large families. We're raising the next generation of leaders.
To a large extent a countries wealth is dependent on it's ability to either grow, mine, manufacture or trade goods and intellectual property. These are the things that bring new wealth into a country. Taking care of retirees does not. It has to be done of course, but the more retirees and the fewer workers we have the more negative impact it will have on our economy and our standing in the world.
I well understand your point but that is simply the thing the pols want you to believe. The underlying problem is that the pols have spent all the money that had been "surplus" through all these years. The more we adjust the system to maintain the surplus, you know "To fix SS unitl 20??.", by raising taxes, lowering benefits, or increasing the retirement age, simply exacerbates the problem by giving the pols more "surplus" money to spend. It will never end because the money will never be there.
Wow! Nine children on less then $30,000 per annum! Just HOW do do you do that? You do know, that you are the exception to the general rule, don't you?
Yes it's not average but most of our friends have 6 or more children(including 4 families within 3 miles that have 8 or 9). It's worth doing if only to drive libs crazy cause they can't recruit fast enough to keep up. Also, I'm not saying that it's easy.
Obviously, it is not easy. I am the product of a large family. My grandmother was one of nearly a dozen children. They made it because her parents had a good-sized home and many of their kids stayed at home and contributed to the household until they married and left home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.