Thursday, February 10, 2005

A Very Risky Scheme

Which of these alternatives seems riskier to you?

A) You pay money into an account which has your name on it. You choose how to invest your money. At retirement, you get to keep the money and whatever additional returns it has earned. If you die, your family gets the money.

B) You pay money to the government. You have no right to the money. The government spends it on pork, but promises some day to tax you again (or your children) to get the money to replace what they spent. Some day, the government says, they will send you a check each month. But the government makes no guarantees. It can reduce or even eliminate the amount you get. You have no ownership rights. You family can't inherit anything. Any amount you do get will be entirely dependent on whatever the government decides is politically expedient at the time.

One of these options seems extremely risky to me. And it's not the one where the money belongs to me (and my family) and I get to decide how to invest it.


Blogger HisSister said...

I'm not sure there is a better issue out there that displays the fundamental differences between the two parties. It's about empowerment: empowerment of the individual or empowerment of the government.

I wish someone would publish the math on how much a minimum wage worker of the last 30 years would now have if they had invested 4% of their income at a low risk/ modest rate. The numbers would be astounding. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone use this argument yet.

4:06 PM, February 10, 2005  
Blogger Maggie said...

The case has been made, however, the MSM doesn't want the people to have the power! That's why blogs are a real thorn in their side...power!

5:41 PM, February 10, 2005  
Blogger LargeBill said...

Great post. A clear and direct argument for the presidents proposal. We all need to ensure our congressmen and senators understand our position on this.

4:14 PM, February 13, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home