Financial Planning for Businesses

The Moral Problem of Social Security

Many older folks rely on Social Security as a major component retirement. If this money was taken away from some people, they would literally starve to death.

Yet, many younger people seem to be conflicted by the issue of Social Security. On the one hand, many people under 40 are starting to believe that Social Security won’t be there for them-or won’t be there in its present form-when they get older and are ready to retire. But, if you ask them if it was there, would they want it…they typically say “yes”.

The real problem with Social Security isn’t that it doesn’t work (even though it really doesn’t, from an actuarial standpoint), it’s that it is immoral-on principle.

Social security relies on taking money from one person or a group of people and giving it to another person or group of people. Even if it were based on the idea of a forced retirement, the fact remains the same: money is taken (RE: stolen) from you and given to someone else immediately.

You wouldn’t accept a common thief’s proposition to steal money from you today and then promise to give it back to you 30 years from now with a nominal amount of interest under the pretense that it was done “for your own good”, so why would you accept the same proposition from a Government?

The real solution to the Social Security problem is to end it. Sell off Government land and pay back all of the people who have been forced into Government dependence, and start making people responsible for their own retirement.

_________________________
October 30th, 2012 | by David | 1 Comment


One Response to “The Moral Problem of Social Security”

  1. Keith McAlister says:

    I was spending a moment in search of a serious article on the ethics of retirement, and came across this article. I don't recall reading a shallower, sillier argument than this. The fundamental premiss is NOT that all who are able to fund their own retirement should do so; it is that ALL people should fund their own retirement, without assistance from the common purse. The proposition is that, not only the smug, middle- class New Yorker but every person, notwithstanding lack of means, intellectual incapacity or life experiences (e.g. invested and lost everything with a cowboy capitalist Wall Street fund manager or Bernie Madoff) should be left to fend for themselves in retirement. What a nasty, nasty proposition. You elevate this proposition as unversially applicable, arguing that Social Security is immoral in principle. Ye Gods! Have you ever seen the lives of the people who pick your coffee beans/ tea leaves/ cocoa beans/ spices/ make your designer clothes? These people work hard all their lives. They can't retire; they'll never have enough. Ah… you say, a fair wage is a different argument. But it's inseparable from your brutal proposition that all social security should be stopped forthwith.

Leave a Reply

WP-SpamFree by Pole Position Marketing