At 07:58 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >In a plan that creates a shortfall by moving money into private accounts, >progressive indexing means that the the most needy of the needy will be hurt >less than everyone else. If we were actually solving the problems of hunger, >health care and education, then perhaps it would make sense to move our >investment in Social Security, which is an investment in today's needy people, >to private markets that might benefit future needy people if the investments >perform well. But we're not; poverty, hunger and illiteracy are rising.
First, that shortfall is only relevant if it causes the US to default on Social Security promises - which I think that you and I would both agree is extremely unlikely. Secondly, Social Security has no investments, so that's a bit of a non sequitur. Thirdly, Social Security it is inaccurate to describe Social Security as merely an "investment in today's needy people." After all, Bill Gates is going to get a Social Security check. Moreover, Social Security provides some *increased* benefits based on having worked longer, or worked for higher wages, which I would expect to be inversely correlated to need. Lastly, your position as described above would lead to the logical conclusion that one should not save so long as there are needy people - that that money would be better spend on charity than on savings. >I don't see anything wrong with using our common wealth and our government to >provide assurance that there will be a dependable safety net. The question is not: "Should there be a government safety net' The question is: "Should the government construct policies such that as few people as possible need the safety net. >Isn't that the >very purpose of government -- to band together for the common good? What >greater measure of the common good is there than the willingness to sacrifice >for the neediest? That is one proposed measure - I believe by Galbraith. Another would be the "Pareto Criterion" - any policy which makes no one in the society worse off. Another would be the "Pragmatic Criterion" - the policy that does the most good for the most people. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
