Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.
Would you like to know what $22K 45 years ago is worth in todays money?
Or even $10K? You're right - you did an overly simplistic analysis
And if you get rid of forced savings, what are you going to do about all
the people who will choose to feed their kids instead of saving? Let
them starve when they retire?
1) In a sane, non-coercive economy there is still plenty of room for
voluntary charity. Even with the villanous system in place today,
Americans are remarkable charitable in the private sector as well.
2) Why should I have to involuntarily underwrite people who have more
children than they can reasonably afford? It is their choice to do
so and thus _their_ responsibility. In the case of my immigrant
grandparents (who had more children than "they could afford") the
assumption (a good one as it turns out) was that _their children_
were their retirement safety net. This may be a novel idea for
you, but there was a time when it was presumed that people were
responsible for the consequences of their choices and it was not
government's job to bail out the bad choices all the time.
3) "What About Those Poor Children (tm)" is the argument of last
resort for pretty much all lost arguments and irrational positions.
It plays well because almost no one wants to see children suffer.
It is right up there with "If It Saves Just One Life (tm)" and
"It Is The Right/Compassionate/Moral Thing To Do (tm)" arguments
in proceeding from a false premise to a horrible invasion of Liberty.
One More Time: Good intentions cannot morally justify theft or force no matter
how decent the person holding them may be or how good
the intended results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/