The main obstacles are the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare. Many Conservatives have had so much taken from us over the 30 or 40 years of our careers to fund this idiocy that we can’t afford to retire without it. How would we allocate the liability for providing this ? How would we allocate responsibility for the national debt ? These things require Federal taxes to pay for because they are Federal obligations, and that tax burden dwarfs the tax benefits of moving to one state or another. FDR planned this disaster with malice aforethought, but he planned it well. Short of a slow unwinding of federal powers, or an explosive collapse, we are stuck — an amicable separation is not possible.
Excellent points to ponder.
First, I want to ask you: you talked about an “amicable separation.” I wonder how your points could be handled if there were no separation, just a return to federalism that would then allow the states that did not want to participate in socialism to do so.
Just kicking around some thoughts. Because, yes, what you have said is horribly true in all respects. Clearly, this is not something that would happen overnight.
Bush’s proposed way out of the Social Security mess might be a model or a starting point for a model. The key idea was that there were those who were vested, and would receive what they had planned to receive, and there were those who were not yet vested, who could opt out. Something like this seems to be the only way to phase out such an entitlement and, taking a generation or so to do it, doesn’t seem too bad considering it allows for a stable transition.
Instead of opting out, there might be a way to cut off further Social Security enrollment completely and transition the next generation to a different, state-run or private system.
It wasn’t the young people who were yammering against Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms. It was the Rats using lies to seniors that Bush was going to take their checks that killed Social Security reform.
Bottom line: sometimes it seems hypocritical that people who are so for limited government at the same time don’t want their Social Security or Medicare cut. But that’s precisely based on what you say: these are the people who often have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into these programs over their working lifetime — and who have often never had a dime in government “assistance” until they get Social Security and Medicare. Go see any financial planner and notice that one thing they factor in, even if with an asterisk, is these entitlement payments.
I agree that it’s important to realize the rug cannot be pulled out from under those who have been planning around this entitlement for decades. At the same time, there can be a path to changing the system over a generation.
In the “return to federalism” scenario some have been discussing on this thread, that would be happening concurrently with a generation-long phasing out of the old entitlement programs and a gearing up of new ways (even if entirely private) to meet those goals for/by individuals.
One other point on your post:
Yes, even in a "return to federalism" scenario, federal taxes would continue to be necessary to (1) pay for the PROPER functions of the federal government, and (2) clean up this egregious mess the Progs have created and now are speeding toward a tipping point.
However, if the federal government really did stop spending everything else it spends, and federal taxes were capped at what was necessary to do (1) and, gradually over time (2) above, I think you'd still see a HUGE amount of "new" money remaining in the hands of those who earned it and available for state taxation.
Yes, we'd still be paying for stuff, but if most things were done by the states, there'd be much more accountability. But the main thing would be that each state would be able to use funds from its citizens for its citizens and not be forced to pay for the citizens of another state.
So, yes, we'd have to keep paying federal taxes for national defense and national debt type stuff, but imagine if federal Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare) programs phased out over the next 40 years. That would be huge.
I'm in this boat. However, if the opportunity arose to live in freedom, but I had to relinquish any claim to either Social Security or Medicare , I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't want my children to have to bear that burden- it's unfair. I'd just have to chalk it up to the bad breaks of life. It'd be worth it to be free, and to have my children and yours also be free.
As for the many seniors who would also be in this situation, we'd band together to make a life for ourselves. We are perfectly capable of doing it, we don't need the government to do it for us. It would be a privilege to serve each other that way.