I started thinking about how giving more money to the person who has less would work in other examples. I was then thinking about the times I end up subsidizing one of my kid's activities when they run a bit short, and what lessons they may be learning from that. Then I remembered the Prodigal Son story and had my excellent example.
The Prodigal Son and The Liberal Father...
A man had 2 sons and a great deal of wealth. Son 1 wanted his share of the inheritance now so that he could use the money. The Father agreed to split his wealth and give half to each son. Son 1 spent his poorly, had a great time, ended up slopping hogs, etc, etc... Son 2 worked hard and continued building his wealth. Son 1 comes home and Dad throws a big party. Son 2 comes from the fields and questions his Father why they are throwing a party for this dead beat? And why did I not get one after all of my hard work and sacrifice?
The Father answers that he is simply so thankful that the lost Son 1 has returned. Then he turns to Son 2 and explains that he is going to give Son 1 half of Son 2's wealth. Son 2 is shocked and asks his Father why? The Father says that it only makes sense since you have wealth and he is broke...
Here ends my revisionist history. My thought is that though people are born into better or worse situations. (ie lucky or unlucky) There is no real excuse that the vast majority of people living in America can not create a pretty good nest egg by the time they retire. Now the question is were they really dedicated to working for the American dream, controlling their costs and saving consistently. Or not ???
A side question: a retiring couple is broke because they chose to have 10 children on a relatively small income. Is this being irresponsible or should they get extra funding due to their low net worth?
Thoughts on all of this?
4 comments:
If you are talking about what is to be done about Social Security, I again suggest taking a look at the Chilean model of privatization. You phase out the existing system over a number of years, replacing it with a system of private accounts that people are REQUIRED to contribute to, and that cannot be tapped until they reach some minimum retirement age. Meanwhile, those nearing or already in retirement get exactly what they were promised from the public system, paid out of the government's general fund, until that segment of the population is "phased out" naturally. This is a complete solution to the problem for anybody that actually has an income during their lifetime.
For those few who never work, or in a system where the private retirement accounts are completely voluntary, there have to be consequences. For those who never worked through no fault of their own, there should be some minimum welfare system, which Social Security is not supposed to be. For those who voluntarily spent rather than investing for their old age they can continue working until they drop over but this ant isn't going to give those grasshoppers one dime. And there's probably some middle ground in there somewhere, between the two.
J. Ewing
"There is no real excuse that the vast majority of people living in America can not create a pretty good nest egg by the time they retire."
I couldn't disagree with this more. There are millions of working poor who put in 40+ hours a week and remain at or below poverty line.
I recognize that my own situation is thanks to good parents, a good work ethic, a good education, a good spouse, a good brain, and a lot of good luck. Take away one or two of those factors and I'd probably still be fine. Take away four or five and it's not realistic to think I could be in the same fortunate position.
I don't think Social Security is perfect, by any means. And I think personal investments should be the backbone of anyone's retirement who could afford to do proper saving. But for all those who couldn't spare even the 4 or 8 or 10 percent that the experts recommend (let alone the 15 that high earners can afford), there needs to be a strong system to keep them out of poverty.
Good choices can help us all, but some folks can make the best choices available their whole life and not achieve any measure of wealth. Even in America. Maybe especially in America.
As far as ten kids? Whoa! I'm a firm believer in living within your means, I can't imagine what kind of means you need to support a family that size.
What is this about 40 hrs?
According to my calculations there are ~112 waking hours in the week. (7 days X 16 hrs/day)
If you have attained your income and financial goal, maybe 40 or less hrs/wk is acceptable. Meaning you just want to maintain.
Until then let's assume 50+ hrs/wk of work + 10 hrs/wk of continual learning. The libraries are free and full of knowledge. The American dream has rarily come without significant effort and sacrifice. Remember, I come from a farming background where there is no such thing as a 40 hr wk.
By the way, don't you find it interesting that many immigrant families seem to be able to achieve financial success while many born in America families continue to piss away the wonderous opportunity they were given by being born in this country.
If you question this, consider the fate of most lottery winners...
How about we base public policy on the 95+% of people who DO work hard enough to save for retirement, and leave the exceptions to whatever welfare system we continue to support. Remember, there is no "right" to retire. It's a completely arbitrary political construct. Under the Chilean model, the private accounts are voluntary, but 95+% of the population have opted in, and are now retiring earlier and much wealthier than they ever could have under the public system.
I reject the phony holier-than-thou notion that there are "some people" (not us, for goodness' sake, we're just fine) who cannot make it given the FREEDOM and necessity to do so. And because of these invisible incompetents, we lose OUR freedom to enrich our families, make our own way, and offer charity as we see fit, benefitting everybody.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment