RE: A Different Approach to Social Security

["Michael L. Coburn" <michael.l.coburn@gte.net>]

In response  to M Jabbour's critique of G. Flynn:

You have also missed some very big points.  You have asked several
leading questions which I will be more than happy to address.  You
asked:

1.What right do you have to propose that the wealthy pay more for being
wealthy?

    Wealth is defined as assets controlled, not income.  If I "own" a
large piece of real estate or a large amount of stocks and bonds then I
am wealthy.  Whether I chose to use the large chunk of real estate to
generate large amounts of income or not or whether the companies I
control actually provide me with taxable income or not is irrelevant.  I
am still wealthy regardless of my taxable income because wealth is the
measure of the assets which I control.  Alas, in our society, it is not
by employment of a private army and road and bridge construction crew
that I control and improve the value of my assets this but by virtue of
the defense, law enforcement, and infrastructure development activities
of government.  Frankly, you should pay for defense, law enforcement,
and infrastructure development in direct proportion to the assets you
control because that is the measure of benefit that you derive from
government.

2. Why should I be penalized for making money?

    You shouldn't.  Right handed government activities (defense, law
enforcement, and infrastructure development) should be funded with the
proceeds of asset taxation, and social programs should be funded from
the proceeds of excise/consumption taxes.  Nobody should be taxed for
being productive.  Unfortunately, our illustrious government wants to
base all government funding on some form of income tax so that the
government can screw around with us at all times and play the right
against the left in a never ending session of political wrangling.

3. Why should those who produce be penalized for producing, and those
who do not be rewarded for not producing?

    Children and the infirm are not capable of producing, yet they must
consume or die.  Elderly people are infirm due to age.  No child ever
planned or contributed to their existence, and I know not one person who
WANTS to be old.  I can no more prevent the debilitating effects of age
than I can fly.  It matters not whether I make a bunch of money.  I'M
STILL GOING TO GET OLD.

    The society and infrastructure in which you live came from the
current elderly.  You were a child without means and were nurtured to
the point of self reliance by the current elderly and while they did
that they also cared for their predecessors  Where we seem to be going
wrong here is the insistence on so much personalization and reward and
punishment.  But even this is not so bad as the insistence on using
measuring sticks that don't actually indicate whether or not some
particular elderly person is more or less "deserving" than another
elderly person.

    When we get old and can no longer produce then the expense of our
continued consumption is measured in the supply of available resources
and the difficulty in harvesting such resources.  There is some amount
of food, clothing, and shelter available.  The more that is available,
and the more productive the current producers are then the more there
will be for ALL, and the less effort will be needed to supply the
consumables.  We tend to focus too much on attempting to measure one's
right to consume based upon how much wealth a person has managed to
accumulate.  Unfortunately, the most profitable enterprises on a
personal basis are those which encourage others to consume.  In our lust
to accumulate wealth (government enforced IOU's), we may well
overconsume and severely limit the supply of future goods.  It would be
MUCH more effective to tax consumption and thereby encourage both
investment and conservation.

    This kind of taxation would NOT punish the productive and reward the
non-productive.  It would provide for the elderly by taxing the
gluttonous.