----- Original Message ----- From: "dshemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am willing to agree that socializing the cost reduces the resentment, but isn't that simply another way of saying people prefer the illusion they are getting a free lunch? However, basing public policy on hiding costs can be problematic and have unintended consequences, right? For instance, would you agree that the existence of social security has a very negative effect on the savings rate (i.e. because people expect a government pension, they save less for their retirement than they would in the absence of social security)? ----- But SS should be considered as part of the savings rate as it is a form of forced savings for the nation as a whole. By your logic, all taxation has an adverse effect on the savings rate and therefore we should abolish the state. > I don't assume all children can take of their parents. My position is that you should take care of my parents only if I cannot, and we should not create disincentives to me taking care of my patients (and preparing for my own retirement). David Shemano ----- And just how much should every 'child' save for the provisioning of their parents on the chances that one of them will get, say, Alzheimer's or cancer, in addition to saving for retirement? It seems you implicitly assume that we can create insurance markets for all possible risks. "Converting Social Security's basic benefits into private accounts shifts risks onto individuals who are in no position to bear them" [Robert Reischauer]. Substitute the words 'nuclear family' for individuals and one can't help but think that 'diseconomies of scale' in the restructuring of risk would proliferate like rabbits. Another issue is the faux-libertarianism folded into the Bushies mendacity with the catch-all phrase "it's your money." Well then, why is the government telling me I must stick it into an ISA? Why not just cut the payroll tax and let me choose what I want to do with the cash so I can spend it on one of those new gizmos touted endlessly on the pages of Business Week, or taking my family out for dinner or.........beer! All the Bushies are doing is shifting from one form of govt. paternalism to another and shifting risks and wealth in opposite directions. That's not a Ponzi scheme, it's Enronizing the State to maintain and enlarge the structure of political patronage that currently exists; a political party manipulating the State to take care of it's friends.....iow, a *protection racket* For a solid knock down argument on the "it's your money" mantra see Murphy and Nagel's "The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice." Ian
