Social Issues
Introduction
This is the section where i briefly mention some domestic (government) type issues. Many of the social issues should be addressed at the state level, definitely not the federal level.
Social Security, the health care/insurance debate, abortion, gay marriage, and maybe more will be mentioned in some way. There may be light economic components to some of the sections. Some of this is about money, some of it is not.
The Minimum Wage
i was debating exactly where to put this section: social issues or economics, ultimately i chose to park it here. First let's get some things straight - a job is not a right and neither is a "living wage". Surprisingly, i'm not a fan of the minimum wage (please hold your shock and confoundment until later). The government is setting up a price floor (a little more on that in the Economy section).
So, what is the goal of a minimum wage? My answer would be a potentially well-meaning but ultimately harmful delusion. Think of minimum wage as a transitory wage - many people start their working lives earning minimum wage, then go from there. Basically, a floor on hourly earnings for people with little or no marketable skills. There aren't really that many people trying to live on minimum wage (minimum wage jobs are mostly part-time anyway).
This is just a deluded way for people to somehow think that they are somehow helping the downtrodden lower skilled, less knowledgeable workers. These are exactly the type of jobs that should pay the least - jobs where workers are easily replaceable.
The larger the population is, the higher the pressure for stagnant or declining wages exists. Wages (and total compensation) should be determined solely by free market conditions. There is no better way to reduce these types of jobs than to increase the amount paid for them (you can actually reduce the available minimum wage jobs by increasing the minimum wage). Maybe your attempts to help the non-skilled workers might hurt them.
Social Insercurity
i know this may come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my "manifesto"... i am a fan of free market capitalism with very limited government intervention.
So, how does Social Security work its way into all of this? Maybe because it is a government mandated program that under the guise of saving is just a tax and transfer program. The first recipient Ida May Fuller paid a whopping total of $24.75 and only received a measly $22,888.92 out of it. That is an insanely good return on investment.
Part of the problem is that the politicians sold the citizens that this was somehow kind of savings plan (though the bill never used the term "saving"). Basically, this is just a tax that puts money in a fund then pays it out it goes (pay as you go). It transfers the taxes you pay into the system to an existing retiree's benefits.
For some reason, it was required that the surplus funds would legally have to be lent to the government in the form of interest-bearing government securities (like treasury bills). Unfortunately, for the population the surplus Social Security funds have amounted to a huge national debt (over $4 Trillion, [originally written 2011 or so]). Forcing a tax surplus to be put into interest earning devices (read further debt and taxpayer cost) does not seem like a good idea.
So, Social Security as a savings plan has been debunked - then what is it for? This is one of those so-called "safety nets". For some retirees (namely the depression era), the safety net is 2 centimeters off of the ground. For people like me, in my 40s, it is like the safety net is at the bottom of Mt. Everest (and i'm at the summit).
It is nothing more than another tax (a tax in safety net clothing). The reality is that it is a transfer program that borders on being a Ponzi (pyramid) scheme. The more workers there are at the bottom to support the retirees at the bottom, the better it works. However, there was talk of baby boomers retiring and inverting the pyramid.
What happens when the current system does not support the level of retirement sure to happen? Bad things, none of them any good. We are talking about the worst parts of the Bible: increased tax rates (which will disadvantage the US workers in a competitive global economy), raise costs for employers (never understood why they have to pay the tax anyway, it's not like you benefit from it), increasing retirement age - 150 sound about right.
The bottom line here is Social Security is a raw deal. There is no better way to encourage saving/investment than for the government to step in and lead people to believe that they will do it for the individual (i'm being sarcastic here - social security is a direct disincentive to saving/investing). Not only does this seem to be a tacit discouragement, it takes away money people have to investing.
i only have an obligation to myself; i should not be subsidizing others who don't have the foresight to save or invest. If you don't want to save, you shouldn't have to. This is intergenerational theft (and vote buying/control) at its finest. The mandatory feature of this is off-putting also. Social Security should have a complete opt-out provision where the person would not be punished for working and neither would the employer (their 6.2% tax for hiring you).
So, how do i recommend fixing this incredibly expensive spending behemoth? End the employer paid portion of the tax (they actually pay all of it, but the stated portion). Without that built-in penalty for hiring a worker, maybe they could pass some of that on to the worker (obviously they wouldn't pass all of it on) in the form of higher wages. The worker sees no direct benefit from this government forced matching anyway. i would then make it completely optional (you could opt out if you want to and here's a strange idea - use it for what you want to).
One of the problems with Social Security, which may have served a purpose once (perverted as it may have been) is that it is a perpetual program (i will probably discuss a little bit more in the last section of the manifesto). Basically, it is a bad thing when you have such a large liability. This has the capability to lead to massive borrowing. The less people involved, the less liability (also less funding, oh well).
Why did Social Security have surpluses? Because they overtaxed workers. Then they loaned the money to the government, increasing spending - then the country has to pay it back with interest (only a couple of levels of tax there).
But... "i paid into Social Security, it's my money"? Wrong, you paid a tax into a pay as you go transfer program - which has no contractual obligation to pay you (Flemming vs Nestor). "Your" money has already been spent.
There was nothing saved, if there were you couldn't ever get a cost-of-living adjustment. Social Security should be sunset for those over, say 55 - keep getting benefits (keep taxes long enough to pay those out).
Yes, market volatility could wipe you out - but the risk you take should be your call. Sometimes you have to make the hard calls, eliminating Social Security and its accumulated debt would be mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment