RE: Question on Charity

[Robert Jacobs <bobj@mss.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ndss@network-democracy.org
[mailto:owner-ndss@network-democracy.org On Behalf Of Bob Carlitz
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 5:31 PM
To: ndss-participants@network-democracy.org
Cc: ndss@network-democracy.org
Subject: Question on Charity


>			QUESTION ON CHARITY


> Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both charity
> and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security
> system.

> 1. Do you favor a privatized system which eliminates the current
> system's redistributive benefits formula (which gives relatively
> higher benefits to lower-income people)?

Yes.  Also there are enough studies done by CATO http://www.cato.org
that show the poor are being ripped off by social security because
they don't live as long as those who are not poor.  Because of this
fact, the current system does not give relatively higher benefits
to lower-income people.

> 2. Under the present system or some of the proposed alternatives,
> will some people be forced to choose between food, lodging or
> medicine in their daily budgets?

Aren't we all ask to make choices on how to spend our money?
If the system makes these choices for us than that is unwise.
Only the people who are directly involved, close family and
doctors can make these choices. The federal government and
Social Security is unable to make a good choice for everyone
since they can only have one set of rules.

The assumption that the government will make better decisions than
the citizen is wrong. It is self serving. It gives government an
excuse for taking our money.


> 3. Will charitable organizations be able to fill the gap between
> the needs of the poorest sector of the population and the benefits
> provided by government programs?  Should this be the solution to
> this problem?

Yes. Look at The Libertarian Reader Edited by David Boaz:  Part
two: The Tendrils of Community by Charles Murray (I don't have the
original). Pages 108-111

This section shows two things.
1) That if government does not provide a service that private
industry and charitable organizations fill the gap.
2) When taxes are lowered (This includes Social Security Taxes), private
donations increase.

I will add that as taxes are lowered, and services not provided by
government, people are more able and willing to buy the services
themselves. This includes retirement.

Full ownership of assets taken from Social Security taxes should
be owned by the people.  When people die, the money they didn't
use for retirement (an estate) is given to his heirs. Since poor
people die sooner, this estate that is transferred to the person's
children can give these people a real chance in life.

This is something the current system will never do.

If you care about the working poor, stop taking the largest portion
of their taxes away from them.  Either stop taking Social Security
taxes away entirely or put it in its entirety into a privately
owned account.

Robert Jacobs