Post by ShivaTD on Aug 4, 2013 12:41:04 GMT
I'm a card carrying Libertarian but I also have problems with the some of Libertarian Party "Platform Planks" were contradictions and Utopian ideologies supersede logical resolutions to our problems in America. Such is the case when I read the Party Platform on Social Security(/Medicare).
The Libertarian Party Platform states in part:
While this is great from an idealistic standpoint the reality is quite different. In the 1930's it was well established that about 1/2 of the people reaching retirement age did not invest throughout their working career to have the assets necessary to provide income when they were too old to work. Congress created Social Security as a welfare program but did not address the actual problem which was the failure of people to voluntarily invest to provide for their future income when they were too old to work. The identical problem was re-identified in the 1960's when it was found that (the same) 1/2 of the people at retirement age hadn't accumulated enough in personal wealth to provide the income to pay for private medical insurance when they were too old to work. It was the same 1/2 of the population that didn't invest for retirement income voluntarily that didn't have income to live on and to pay for health insurance and the only difference was 30 years of time passing.
The simple fact is that if left to their own decisions about 1/2 of the People won't voluntarily invest throughout their working career to accumulate enough personal wealth to provide for themselves when they become too old to work. They're not going to simply decide to invest if we leave that up to them and, when they're too old to work we either ignore them and let them starve and become homeless or we depend upon private charity that has never been enough to support 1/2 of those too old to retire, or we depend on government to do it and our government really can't afford it.
It is idealistic to believe that the people will magically start to voluntarily invest for their future retirement simply because they have a responsibility to do so. People are irresponsible when left to their own devices and voluntary investing is not a pragmatic solution to the problem of extreme poverty for those to old to work. Nice ideal that won't work. From a "libertarian" perspective I argue for privatization of Social Security (that builds personal wealth owned by the person) including the taxes necessary to make the transition from a welfare program to a personal wealth creation program. I address the problem that was identified and ignored by Congress that only address the symptom which was the lack of income to support the person and pay for private health insurance when they become too old to work.
Of course many argue for "privatization" but most are unwilling to pay for the transitional costs that will be incurred for up to about 45 years (i.e. the average working life of a person) that, on a rough order of magnitude, would require an additional $40 trillion in new tax revenues during that time frame. This additional tax burden is not "level loaded" as it would start out small, then increase dramatically over about 20 years, and then decline to virtually nothing by the end of the 45 year transitional period.
I will layout a specific proposition on how to privatize Social Security in later posts but to start with I wanted to point out that the Libertarian Party position fails at this point because it doesn't address the reality that about 1/2 of the American People are financially irresponsible and depending upon them to voluntarily contribute to their financial future when they will be too old to work is a failing proposition. It simply won't happen and they would created a burden that we simply can't afford to pay for based upon government welfare programs and/or private charities.
The Libertarian Party Platform states in part:
2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.
While this is great from an idealistic standpoint the reality is quite different. In the 1930's it was well established that about 1/2 of the people reaching retirement age did not invest throughout their working career to have the assets necessary to provide income when they were too old to work. Congress created Social Security as a welfare program but did not address the actual problem which was the failure of people to voluntarily invest to provide for their future income when they were too old to work. The identical problem was re-identified in the 1960's when it was found that (the same) 1/2 of the people at retirement age hadn't accumulated enough in personal wealth to provide the income to pay for private medical insurance when they were too old to work. It was the same 1/2 of the population that didn't invest for retirement income voluntarily that didn't have income to live on and to pay for health insurance and the only difference was 30 years of time passing.
The simple fact is that if left to their own decisions about 1/2 of the People won't voluntarily invest throughout their working career to accumulate enough personal wealth to provide for themselves when they become too old to work. They're not going to simply decide to invest if we leave that up to them and, when they're too old to work we either ignore them and let them starve and become homeless or we depend upon private charity that has never been enough to support 1/2 of those too old to retire, or we depend on government to do it and our government really can't afford it.
It is idealistic to believe that the people will magically start to voluntarily invest for their future retirement simply because they have a responsibility to do so. People are irresponsible when left to their own devices and voluntary investing is not a pragmatic solution to the problem of extreme poverty for those to old to work. Nice ideal that won't work. From a "libertarian" perspective I argue for privatization of Social Security (that builds personal wealth owned by the person) including the taxes necessary to make the transition from a welfare program to a personal wealth creation program. I address the problem that was identified and ignored by Congress that only address the symptom which was the lack of income to support the person and pay for private health insurance when they become too old to work.
Of course many argue for "privatization" but most are unwilling to pay for the transitional costs that will be incurred for up to about 45 years (i.e. the average working life of a person) that, on a rough order of magnitude, would require an additional $40 trillion in new tax revenues during that time frame. This additional tax burden is not "level loaded" as it would start out small, then increase dramatically over about 20 years, and then decline to virtually nothing by the end of the 45 year transitional period.
I will layout a specific proposition on how to privatize Social Security in later posts but to start with I wanted to point out that the Libertarian Party position fails at this point because it doesn't address the reality that about 1/2 of the American People are financially irresponsible and depending upon them to voluntarily contribute to their financial future when they will be too old to work is a failing proposition. It simply won't happen and they would created a burden that we simply can't afford to pay for based upon government welfare programs and/or private charities.